Rule Against Perpetuities Practice Problems

Navigating the Labyrinth: Rule Against Perpetuities Practice Problems

The Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) is a notoriously complex area of property law, designed to prevent property from being tied up in dead hands indefinitely. This article delves into the intricacies of the RAP, providing a comprehensive explanation and tackling various practice problems to solidify your understanding. Understanding the RAP is crucial for anyone working with trusts, wills, and other instruments governing future interests in property. We will explore its core principles, common pitfalls, and the techniques used to analyze and solve practical scenarios.

Understanding the Rule Against Perpetuities: A Foundation

At its core, the RAP aims to prevent the creation of interests in property that might vest (become certain) too far into the future. The classic formulation states that "no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest." This seemingly simple rule has spawned countless legal disputes and complex interpretations.

Let's break down the key components:

• Vest: An interest vests when it becomes certain who will possess the property and when they will possess it. Until that point, the interest is considered contingent.

• Life in Being: This refers to a person alive at the time the interest is created (e.g., the date of the will or trust). The life in being is used as a measuring life to determine the perpetuity period.

• 21 Years: This is added to the lifespan of the life in being to create a buffer period, accounting for potential unforeseen delays.

The RAP's objective is to ensure that property ownership eventually becomes clear and avoids indefinite uncertainty. Failure to comply results in the offending interest being void. It's important to note that the specific rules and their application may vary slightly across different jurisdictions.

Common Pitfalls and Challenges in Applying the RAP

Several common issues complicate the application of the RAP:

• Identifying the "life in being": Determining the relevant "life in being" can be challenging, particularly in complex scenarios involving multiple potential beneficiaries. It is the life that most effectively measures the period of uncertainty.

• Dealing with "wait-and-see" clauses: These clauses postpone the vesting of an interest until a future event occurs, making it harder to predict whether vesting will occur within the perpetuity period.

• Interpreting the "21 years" addition: This seemingly simple addition can become intricate when dealing with complex scenarios involving multiple measuring lives.

• Understanding the impact of reform legislation: Many jurisdictions have reformed or abolished the RAP, creating a patchwork of rules across different states and countries. Understanding the specific legislation in your jurisdiction is essential.

Practice Problems: Testing Your Understanding

Let's tackle some practical problems to solidify your understanding of the RAP. These examples illustrate the complexities and subtleties involved in applying this rule.

Problem 1:

"O conveys Blackacre 'to A for life, then to A's grandchildren who reach the age of 25.'" Does this violate the RAP?

Solution: Yes, this violates the RAP. The grandchildren are not all lives in being at the time of the conveyance. A grandchild could be born after O's death, resulting in a possible vesting period exceeding the perpetuity period. The vesting is not certain within 21 years after the death of the last surviving life in being.

Problem 2:

"O leaves his estate 'to my children, then to their first-born child who reaches the age of 30.'" Does this violate the RAP?

Solution: Yes, this violates the RAP. A child could be born long after O's death, and their firstborn child reaching 30 would exceed the perpetuity period. The uncertainty extends far beyond a life in being plus 21 years.

Problem 3:

"O leaves $100,000 in trust, the income payable to A for life, then the principal to A's children who reach age 21." Does this violate the RAP?

Solution: This is a more nuanced situation. The key question is whether all of A's children are lives in being. If A has children already alive at O's death, then the interest to the children may vest within the perpetuity period, provided that all A's children are lives in being. However, if A could have more children after O's death, the RAP is potentially violated due to the uncertain birth of a child and their attainment of 21 years of age.

Problem 4:

"O leaves Blackacre 'to A for life, then to A's eldest child for life, then to A's grandchildren who survive the death of the eldest child." Does this violate the RAP?

Solution: This is a classic example of a potential RAP violation. While A's eldest child is a life in being, that child's children (A's grandchildren) are not all lives in being. A grandchild could be born long after O's death, potentially exceeding the perpetuity period before the interest vests.

Problem 5 (More Complex):

"O creates a trust providing income to A for life, then to A's surviving spouse for life, then to A's grandchildren who reach age 25, and if there are no surviving grandchildren, then to the local animal shelter." Does this violate the RAP?

Solution: This presents a more challenging problem. A, A's spouse, and A's grandchildren alive at O's death are all lives in being. However, the potential birth of grandchildren after O's death introduces uncertainty. The RAP is violated because the vesting of the interest to the grandchildren is uncertain due to the possibility of future grandchildren being born and surviving until age 25. Even though there’s an alternative remainder to the animal shelter, the uncertain vesting of the remainder interest to the grandchildren invalidates it.

The Wait-and-See Doctrine and Other Reforms

Many jurisdictions have adopted the "wait-and-see" doctrine to mitigate the harshness of the RAP. This approach allows courts to wait and see if the interest actually vests within the perpetuity period before declaring it void. This softens the blow of the RAP but doesn't entirely eliminate its complexities. Other reforms include the "Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities" (USRAP), which attempts to streamline the application of the rule. These reforms aim to modernize the RAP while maintaining the fundamental principle of preventing undue restraints on alienation.

Conclusion: Mastering the Rule Against Perpetuities

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a complex and challenging area of law, demanding careful analysis and a thorough understanding of its intricacies. While the specific rules and their application vary by jurisdiction, the underlying principle of preventing indefinite postponement of property ownership remains constant. By understanding the core components of the RAP and working through practical problems, you can develop the skills to navigate the complexities of this important area of property law. Remember to always check the specific rules and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction when applying the RAP in any practical situation. The examples provided here are for educational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. Consulting with a legal professional is essential for advice related to specific cases or situations.