Rule Against Perpetuities Exam Prep

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a legal doctrine preventing interests in property from being vested after a certain period. Understanding this rule is crucial for law students as it addresses the limits on the duration of contingent future interests in property. Students must not only be able to articulate the rule clearly but also apply it to various hypothetical scenarios, identifying when interests are deemed valid or void under the rule.

Key to mastering the Rule Against Perpetuities is recognizing the 'measuring life' involved and how it affects the validity of future interests. Students should also familiarize themselves with relevant exceptions and the intricacies of how jurisdictions may apply the rule differently. Familiarity with related doctrines, such as the Doctrine of Worthier Title and the Rule in Shelley’s Case, can further bolster a student’s understanding and application in an exam context.

1. 1. A future interest is invalid if it may vest more than 21 years after the death of a measuring life.
2. 2. A 'measuring life' is a person or entity whose lifetime is relevant to determining the validity of the interest.
3. 3. Contingent remainders and executory interests are the primary interests affected by the rule.
4. 4. The rule does not apply to vested interests.
5. 5. Interests created in favor of unborn or unascertainable persons are void if they do not vest within the period.
6. 6. There are statutory exceptions in some jurisdictions, such as reform statutes.
7. 7. The 'Wait and See' approach may be applied in jurisdictions allowing monitoring until the time of vesting.

In applying the Rule Against Perpetuities, the first step is to identify all future interests created by the conveyance or will, as well as the relevant measuring lives. For example, if the conveyance states that property shall go to A's children who are alive at A's death, we must analyze the possibility of those interests vesting more than 21 years after the death of A or any other measuring life present at the time of the conveyance.

Next, evaluate whether any parties identified as potential takers are alive or ascertainable at the time of the conveyance. If any interest appears to vest contingent upon the lives of unborn descendants, further analysis is needed to see if any of those interests could potentially vest beyond the allowable time frame. In jurisdictions following the traditional rule, these interests would be considered void.

Students should also be ready to discuss the possibility of statutory modifications, which could alter the traditional application of the rule, allowing for a greater time frame or specified exceptions. This nuanced approach not only illustrates understanding of the rule but also the practical implications of state law variations for future interests.