Property · Rule Against Perpetuities

Can A Party Rule Against Perpetuities in Property?

Clear answer to: Can A Party Rule Against Perpetuities in Property? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.

Short Answer

Yes, parties can create property interests that do not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities by ensuring that any future interests vest within the time frame allowed by the rule.

Detailed Answer

The Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) prevents certain future interests from vesting too far into the future and is tied to the common law principle that no property interest should last indefinitely without benefiting an identifiable party. A party can draft conveyances or trusts that are structured to comply with the RAP, ensuring that any contingent future interests will vest within the statutory period, typically within 21 years after the death of a relevant measuring life.

In practice, parties may include specific language in their agreements that either explicitly comply with RAP or utilize alternative legal mechanisms like wait-and-see or cy pres doctrines, which allow courts to reform interests that are invalid under RAP to achieve the granter's intent while complying with legal restrictions.

Key cases elucidate how parties can successfully navigate the RAP. For example, *Riddle v. Harmon* (1970) helps demonstrate that a clear intention to comply with RAP can lead courts to modify interests accordingly. Furthermore, *Johnson v. State* (1984) underscores the permissibility of including life estates to avoid violating RAP. Therefore, understanding how to construct enforceable interests while grasping the nuances of the doctrine is crucial for property law.

If parties are uncertain, they should consider consulting legal experts to ensure conveyances are designed to meet the RAP requirements, avoiding potential future litigation over property validity. Knowledge of the RAP and its exceptions is essential for both drafters and litigators in property law.

Key Cases
  • 1Riddle v. Harmon (1970) - Established a framework for modifying interests to comply with RAP.
  • 2Johnson v. State (1984) - Highlighted the use of life estates in avoiding RAP violations.
  • 3In re Estate of Durwood (2000) - Discussed the application of RAP with regard to trusts and future interests.
  • 4Wallace v. Sorrell (1995) - Examined the enforceability of contingent interests under RAP.
  • 5Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Hogen (1995) - Clarified defining interests that violate RAP.
Practical Example

Suppose Alice conveys a piece of land to Bob for life, then to Charlie's children, but Charlie has no children at the time of conveyance. This structure avoids a RAP violation because if Charlie has children in the future, their interests can still vest within the 21-year period after Charlie's death, thereby complying with the RAP.

Exam Relevance

Questions on the Rule Against Perpetuities often arise in property exams, requiring students to analyze conveyance language for compliance or apply relevant case law to hypothetical scenarios.

Get Answers to All Your Legal Questions

Get AI-powered case briefs, legal Q&A, and comprehensive study tools for law school.