Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

Property Prof. Sturley

1.

to Allison and her heirs when she passes the Texas bar examination; Allison is a firstyear U.T. law student
The grant gives Allison a springing executory interest in fee simple; grantor retains a fee simple on executory limitation. The grant does not violate the Rule
Against Perpetuities, because Allisons interest will vest, if at all, during her own
lifetime. Thus she is an effective life in being.

2.

to the first of my children who passes the Texas bar examination; grantor has three
very young children
The grant purports to give grantors first child to pass the Texas bar examination a
springing executory interest (presumably in fee simple); grantor retains a fee simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, however, because grantor may have another child, grantor and her present
children may die (along with any other potential lives in being), and the afterborn
child may pass the Texas bar examination more than 21 years thereafter. At
common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and grantor retains a fee simple.

3.

devise to the first of my children who passes the Texas bar examination; testator left
three very young children
The devise gives testators first child to pass the Texas bar examination a springing executory interest in fee simple; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities,
because the childs interest will vest, if at all, in the childs lifetime. Because the
testator can have no more children after his death, the child who first passes the
Texas bar examination (if any) is necessarily alive at the time of the devise and is
therefore an effective life in being.

4.

devise to the first of my descendants who passes the Texas bar examination; testator
left three very young children
The devise purports to give testators first descendant to pass the Texas bar examination a springing executory interest in fee simple; testators estate retains a fee
simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, however, because it may be centuries before one of testators descendants passes the bar examination. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is
invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

H:\PROPERTY\RAP review problems and answers 2014

9/25/2014

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 2 of 7

5.

devise to the first of Blairs children who passes the Texas bar examination; Blair, who
is over 80, has three adult children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Blairs children who passes the Texas bar examination; testators estate retains
a fee simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against
Perpetuities, however, because Blair (despite her age) might have another child,
Blair and her present children might die (along with any other potential lives in
being), and the afterborn child might pass the bar examination more than 21 years
thereafter. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators
estate has a fee simple.

6.

devise to the first of Carolines sons who passes the Texas bar examination; Caroline,
who is 16, has no sons
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Carolines sons who passes the Texas bar examination; testators estate retains
a fee simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against
Perpetuities, however, because Caroline might have a son, he might die (along
with any other potential lives in being), and the son might pass the bar examination more than 21 years thereafter. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is
invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

7.

devise to the first of Delaneys daughters who passes the Texas bar examination;
Delaney predeceased testator, leaving three very young daughters
The devise gives the first of Delaneys daughters who passes the Texas bar examination a springing executory interest in fee simple; testators estate retains a fee
simple on executory limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, because the daughters interest will vest, if at all, in the successful
daughters lifetime. Because Delaney predeceased testator and can conceive no
more daughters after her death, the successful daughter (if any) is necessarily
alive at the time of the devise (making allowance, if necessary, for actual periods
of gestation) and therefore is an effective life in being.

8.

devise to the first of Eddys descendants to pass the Texas bar examination; Eddy predeceased testator, leaving three very young children
The devise purports to give the first of Eddys descendants to pass the Texas bar
examination a springing executory interest in fee simple; testators estate retains a
fee simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against
Perpetuities, however, because it may be centuries before one of Eddys descendants passes the Texas bar examination. At common law, therefore, the entire gift
is invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

9.

to Frederick and his heirs if Frederick survives until his 30th birthday; Frederick is 8
years old
The grant gives Frederick a springing executory interest (presumably in fee
simple); grantors estate retains a fee simple on executory limitation. The grant
does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, because Fredericks interest will
vest, if at all, in his lifetime. Thus he is an effective life in being.

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 3 of 7

10.

to the first of my children who survives until his or her 30th birthday; grantor has three
young, healthy children
The grant purports to give a springing executory interest (presumably in fee simple) to grantors first child to survive to 30; grantor retains a fee simple on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, however, because grantor may have another child, grantor and her present children
(along with any other potential lives in being) may die before the afterborn childs
ninth birthday, and the afterborn child may survive to 30. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and grantor has a fee simple.

11.

devise to the first of my sons who survives until his 30th birthday; testator was survived by three very young sons
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to testators first son
who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple on executory limitation.
The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, because the interest
will vest, if at all, in the lifetime of one of testators sons. Because this devise
takes effect at testators death and testator cannot have any more sons, the successful son is necessarily alive at the time of the devise and therefore is an effective life in being.

12.

devise to the first of my descendants who survives until his or her 30th birthday; testator was survived by three very young children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to testators first descendant who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because it may be centuries before one of testators descendants survives to 30. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators
estate has a fee simple.

13.

to the first of my grandchildren who survives until his or her 21st birthday; grantor has
three very young children
The grant purports to give a springing executory interest (presumably in fee simple) to grantors first grandchild who survives to 21; grantor retains a fee simple
on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities
because grantor may have another child, grantor and her present children may die
(along with any other potential lives in being), the afterborn child may have a
child (grantors grandchild), and this afterborn grandchild may survive to 21. At
common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and grantor has a fee simple.

14.

devise to the first of my grandchildren who survives until his or her 21st birthday; testator was survived by three very young children
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to testators first
grandchild who survives to 21; testators estate retains a fee simple on executory
limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, because the
successful grandchilds interest will vest, if at all, during the life of testators child
who is the grandchilds parent or within 21 years after the parents death. Testator can beget no more children after his death, so the successful grandchilds parent is necessarily alive at the time of the devise and therefore is an effective life in
being.

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 4 of 7

15.

devise to the first of my grandchildren who survives until his or her 25th birthday; testator was survived by three very young children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to testators first grandchild who survives to 25; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because testators children may all die (along with any other potential
lives in being) while their children (testators grandchildren) are under four, and
one of them may survive to 25. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is
invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

16.

devise to the first of Hannahs sons who survives until his 30th birthday; Hannah, who
is over 80, has three adult sons, all of whom are under 30
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Hannahs sons who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because Hannah (despite her age) may have another son, Hannah and
her present sons may die (along with any other potential lives in being) before the
afterborn sons ninth birthday, and the afterborn son may survive to 30. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

17.

devise to the first of Ivans sons who survives until his 30th birthday; Ivan predeceased
testator, leaving three very young sons
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first of Ivans
sons who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple on executory
limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the
successful sons interest will vest, if at all, in his own lifetime. Because Ivan
predeceased testator, the successful son (if any) is necessarily alive at the time of
the devise and therefore is an effective life in being.

18.

devise to the first of Jessicas sons who survives until his 30th birthday; Jessica, who is
16, has no sons
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Jessicas sons who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because Jessica may have a son, she may then die (along with any other
potential lives in being) before the afterborn sons ninth birthday, and the afterborn son may survive to 30. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid
and testators estate has a fee simple.

19.

devise to the first of Kenyons descendants who survives until his or her 30th birthday;
Kenyon predeceased testator, leaving twelve healthy young children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Kenyons descendants who survives to 30; testators estate retains a fee simple
on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because it may be centuries before one of Kenyons descendants
survives to 30. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators
estate has a fee simple.

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 5 of 7

20.

devise to the first of Lisas sons who survives until his 21st birthday; Lisa, who is 16,
has no sons
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first of Lisas
sons who survives to 21; testators estate retains a fee simple on executory
limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the
successful sons interest will vest, if at all, during Lisas life or within 21 years of
her death (plus an actual period of gestation, if necessary). Because Lisa is alive
at the time of the grant, she is an effective life in being.

21.

devise to the first of Marcos grandchildren who survives until his or her 21st birthday;
Marco predeceased testator, leaving twelve healthy children
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first of
Marcos grandchildren who survives to 21; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities,
because the successful grandchilds interest will vest, if at all, during the life of
Marcos child who is the grandchilds parent, or within 21 years after the parents
death (plus actual periods of gestation, if necessary). Because Marco will have no
more children after death, Marcos child who will be the successful grandchilds
parent is necessarily alive at the time of the devise (allowing for an actual period
of gestation, if necessary) and therefore is an effective life in being.

22.

devise to the first of Nicks grandchildren who survives until his or her 21st birthday;
Nick, who is over 80, has three adult children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Nicks grandchildren who survives to 21; testators estate retains a fee simple
on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because Nick (despite his age) may have another child, Nick and his
present children may die (along with any other potential lives in being), the afterborn child may have a child (who would be Nicks grandchild), and this afterborn
grandchild may survive to 21. At common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid
and testators estate has a fee simple.

23.

devise to the first of Phillips grandchildren who survives until his or her 25th birthday;
Phillip predeceased testator, leaving twelve healthy children
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Phillips grandchildren who survives to 25; testators estate retains a fee simple
on executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because Phillips children may all die (along with any other potential
lives in being) while their own children (Phillips grandchildren) are under four,
and one of these children (a grandchild) may survive to 25. At common law,
therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 6 of 7

24.

devise to the first of Rachels daughters who survives until her 25th birthday; Rachel is
16 and has no daughters
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Rachels daughters who survives to 25; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities
because Rachel may have a daughter, she (and other potential lives in being) may
die before this daughters fourth birthday, and the daughter may survive to 25. At
common law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators estate has a fee
simple.

25.

devise to the first of Steves children who survives until his or her 25th birthday; Steve,
who is over 80, has three adult children, all of whom are under 25
The devise purports to give a springing executory interest in fee simple to the first
of Steves children who survives to 25; testators estate retains a fee simple on
executory limitation. This violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities,
however, because Steve (despite his age) may have another child, Steve and his
present children (along with any other potential lives in being) may die before this
childs fourth birthday, and the afterborn child may survive to 25. At common
law, therefore, the entire gift is invalid and testators estate has a fee simple.

26.

to Tyler and the male heirs of his body, remainder to Woodrow and his heirs; Tyler,
who is 80, has no sons
The grant gives Tyler a fee tail male and Woodrow a vested remainder in fee
simple. The grant does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because both
Tyler and Woodrow have vested interests. Statutory modifications of the fee tail
doctrine, however, could alter the grant, e.g., by giving Tyler a fee simple.

27.

devise to Yuris widow for her life, remainder in fee simple to the first of Zachs children who survives to age 30 and his or her heirs; Yuri predeceased testator, leaving an
87-year-old widow; Zach predeceased testator, leaving 7 children, the eldest of whom
was 10 at testators death
The devise gives Yuris widow a life estate and Zachs qualifying child a contingent remainder in fee simple; testators estate retains a reversion. The devise
does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the childs interest will
vest, if at all, in his or her own lifetime. Zach, having predeceased testator, can
have no more children. Thus the successful child is necessarily alive at the time
of the devise and therefore an effective life in being.

28.

to Amanda for life, remainder to Bennett for his life, remainder to Bennetts widow for
her life, remainder to Bennetts eldest child in fee simple; Amanda is over 80; Bennett,
who is 16, is unmarried and has no children
The grant gives a life estate to Amanda, a vested remainder in a life estate to
Bennett, a contingent remainder in a life estate to his widow, and a contingent
remainder (presumably in fee simple) to his eldest child; grantor retains a reversion. The grant does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because Bennetts
interest is already vested and the widowers and childs interests will vest, if at all,
on or before Bennetts death. (Note that the childs interest is not subject to a
survival condition. It will vest, if at all, at the childs birth.) Bennett is thus an
effective life in being.

Answers to Review Problems on Perpetuities

page 7 of 7

29.

devise of Blackacre to my eldest child then living when the gravel pits on Blackacre are
worked out; testator (who had been a gravel contractor) knew that the Blackacre gravel
pits would soon be worked out and they were in fact worked out six years after his
death
The devise gives the eldest surviving child a springing executory interest in fee
simple; testators estate retains a fee simple on executory limitation. The devise
does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the childs interest will
vest, if at all, in his or her own lifetime. (Note that the gift here is to testators
child then living. Had the gift been to testators issue then living, the result
would be different.) Because testator can beget no more children, the child who
takes is necessarily alive at the time of the devise and therefore is an effective life
in being.

30.

devise to my youngest descendant living 21 years after the death of the survivor of all
the descendants of Estefania who are living at the time of my death; testator was
survived by three adult children and seven grandchildren; twelve of Estefanias
descendants were living at the time of testators death
The devise gives a springing executory interest in fee simple to the testators
youngest descendant living 21 years after the death of the survivor of the descendants of Estefania living at testators death; testators estate retains a fee simple
on executory limitation. The devise does not violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities, because the descendants interest will vest, if at all, 21 years after the
death of the survivor of the descendants of Estefania living at testators death.
That survivor is therefore an effective life in being.

31.

to Jonathan and his heirs for as long as the land is used for farming, but if the land is not
used for farming, grantor may enter and reclaim the land
One could argue that the grant gives Jonathan a fee simple determinable (because
the grant uses durational language), with grantor retaining a possibility of
reverter. Alternatively, one could argue that Jonathan has a fee simple on
condition subsequent, and that grantor retains a right of entry (because the grant
uses reentry language and the law prefers the less onerous estate). In either case,
the grant does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because possibilities of
reverter and rights of entry are not subject to the Rule.