Talk:Rule against perpetuities/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Rule against perpetuities. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I found a terrific article by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain discussing the state of the modern rule against perpetuities in Britain and have started to add information to the article. There is a lot to be done on this article, but I felt that at this stage it is no longer pervasively or invidiously U.S.-centric and plan to remove the tag.--Theprovost (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If only American lawyers update this article, it will be a bit American centered--but not because we haven't looked around! It's hard to find foreign law on the internet and we're all busy people. I have done my best to add content to this article about specific jurisdictions in the U.S. and the rule, and hope other lawyers or law students from the many common law jurisdictions in the world can step up and take a minute to throw in what they know about the law of their own people. Law needs a localized, professional touch sometimes to get the info--i can't wait to see this article when it covers the Rule and its application all over the world, but that's going to take work. Dust off your property textbooks and jump in attorneys, solicitors, barristers, one and all.--Theprovost (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Me again. i took some stuff out of the intro. What i took out were statement of what the Rule "tries" to do and what its "purpose" is. These things are too controversial. They are sure to keep cropping up in this article, and if so they should end up in a "criticism" or "controversy" section and not in the definition. It is one thing to say what the rule's practical or superficial effect is today (viz, limiting the ability of people to create interests in property that vest too remotely, which happens to be pretty obvious in the rule on its face) and something else to argue that it was "intended" to keep people from doing this or that. It's origins are obscure, and a very convincing american or british law article I read (and will come up with the author asap) has argued it had more to do with the testator/grantor's practical ability to identify the specific individuals who would take, the idea not that he shouldn't be able to control his property forever, but that he shouldn't be able to designate his property to takers too far from his own personal experience (which is quite consistent with the older notions of feudal tenure--the king did not want to have to call on unknowns for a duty of faith and brotherly obligation). All interesting stuff, right? but not stuff that belongs in the intro to the article--Theprovost (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen math articles on wikipedia with companion "lay person" articles. I think property law in general would benefit from those. Unfortunately, they'd have to start from scratch before you could describe the rule in layman's terms. you need future interest in layman's terms, and executory interest in layman's terms, etc, etc.

Given the grant "To A for life, then to his widow for life, then to their children then living," is it true that if A is not yet married at the time of the grant, his future wife who survives him to become his widow cannot be a life in being even if she was alive at the time of the grant? RandomWalker 07:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't think it matters...because irrespective of when A's widow shows up, her interest, as a matter of logical necessity, vest within 21 years of a life in being, namely A. Streamless 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

wouldn't it matter in the sense that if A's future wife who survives him to become his widow (let's call her "B") cannot be a life in being, then the grant to the "children then living" could occur more than 21-years from the death of A, the sole life in being? This would occur if B lives more than 21 years past the death of A. This grant is used by a leading bar-exam review course as an example of a grant that violates the rule. I would just like some clarification on why it violates the rule if B was alive at the time of the grant but not yet married to A. Is the issue that lives in being must be identifiable at time of the grant? What if A's wife at the time of the grant does turn out to be his widow? Maybe my problem is that I am just mentioning specific scenarios, instead of analyzing the grant for all of the possibilities. RandomWalker 19:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

* apologies, i thought you were wondering whether the grant to the widow violated the RAP. irrespective of whether B is alive at the time of the grant (you'll sometimes see that abbreviated Tg), we have no idea when the childrens' interest will vest. we're not even sure when they'll be born, or even if they'll be born. since that may or may not occur within 21 years of the lifespan of A, that part of the grant violates the RAP (if a grant contemplates multiple conveyances, one conveyance may violate the RAP without rendering the entire grant ineffective - double-check that with your property/future interests teacher).

* oh, and lastly, a life in being 'does' have to be identifiable at the time of the grant. some property professor was kind enough to put a powerpoint presentation on the internet; check it out. Streamless 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is about as clear a definition of the RAP as I've seen. I admit it is a whimsy, but as a law student I rather enjoyed the related concept of the fertile octogenarian - Paulthedesertrat (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a parenthetical phrase which said "one of the death taxes" in reference to the inheritance transfer tax. Parenthetical phrases are generally a sign of informal writing at best, so it needed revision on those grounds. My greater concern, however, is that the words "death tax" have no legal meaning whatsoever. They were coined as part of a media campaign against estate taxes. Asides like this do not clarify the subject matter for the reader, but instead cloud the topic with politics. Because there is a policy debate to be had regarding this subject a section discussing the policy debate might be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BriceTimmons (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes this an Anglo-American law? It should say British law, as it was formulated in Britain. It may have developed independently in the USA but it did so too in many other countries. What makes the USA more important in the history of this law than India or Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.146.102 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So I changed "is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that" to "is a common law rule that" but somebody reverted it. Can that person explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.146.102 (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-lawyers (this is, after all, a general encyclopedia, and not a law encyclopedia), could someone give an example of something that a will might say which violates this rule? Thanks!--Keeves 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read this entire article and find myself not realy having any idea at the end what a "rule against perpetuiies" is. Could we start things off with very simple, layman blrb that is no longer than two short-to-medium length sentences? Dxco 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

sure, say i own some land. property rules state, for better or worse, that i'm allowed to transfer it and dictate the terms of the transfer. so i can do this, "i, Streamless, transfer the Land to Keeves and his (i'm guessing) heirs so long as the Land is not used as a fast-food restaurant". what happens is that Keeves (and his heirs) gets the land, but if a fast-food restaurant is built on the Land, it reverts to me or my heirs. me and my heirs have what's called a contingent remainder (it's contingent on not having fast food, and it's called a remaineder because it's my part of the original absolute ownership i had). so far so good.

This example is wrong. You as the grantor would not have a contingent remainder. Contingent remainders are only made in grantees. Your interest, as the grantor, would not be subject to the Rule because only contingent remainders and executory interests are subject to the rule. From Black's, "remainder. Property. 1. A future interest arising in a third person -- that is, someone other than the estate's creator, its initial holder, or the heirs of either -- who is intended to take after the natural termination of the preceding estate."

i learned that only executory interests are subject to the rule, and that a remainer in a grantor's heirs is in fact called a contingent remainder. any citation to back up your assertion? Streamless 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, some remainders and executory interests may be subject to the rule. However, the grantors interest is not a remainder. The phrase "so long as" shows that the grantor is devising a fee simple determinable and maintaining a possibility reverter. A possibility reverter is not subject to the rule. For that matter, neither is a right to re-enter which would have been the case if the question read "but if" instead of "so long as."failureofafriend ([[User talk:Failureofafriend2008 (UTC)

now, imagine i do this: "i Streamless, transfer the Land to Keeves and his heirs, but if it is used as a hair salon, then to Dxco and her (i'm guessing again) heirs". Dxco has what's called an executory interest. it's still contingent, but it's not a remainder, since it has nothing to do with me or my heirs. also, it's not vested, since Dxco and her heirs have nothing now, indeed, if there's never a hair salon, Dxco gets nothing.

okay, sticking with that: let's say that in the year 3000, Keeves great-great-great grandson builds a hair salon on the land. Technically, according to my grant, the Land belongs to the heirs of Dxco, who could presumably go to court and sue for the Land on the basis of their executory interest. this could be a problem for courts, so there's a rule preventing it. the rule says: no executory interest is valid if it may vest (assuming it vests at all) beyond the measure of any life in being plus 21 years. the part of my grant to Dxco would break the rule, and the Land would revert to my heirs as soon as Keeves' heirs build the hair salon. Streamless 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, i don't know if anyone can do the rule in two short or medium-length sentences. Streamless 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. For non-lawyers who are puzzled by this, let me add that there is probably no rule in Anglo-American law that causes more annoyance to law students than the RAP. It's the subject of near-total derision among law students and many lawyers. So don't feel bad if you don't understand it. Most lawyers don't either. This article does a pretty good job of explaining it in laymen's terms as best as can be with such a complex rule.CoramVobis 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way to make this article somewhat understandable to the layperson, or even useful to anyone, there should either be an introduction to future interests or a link to such. As you said, many law students and lawyers don't understand the rule. They spend 2 weeks learning how to identify the interests first. If you read the above discussions, even the editors of this article don't understand how to identify the interests. You can't apply the rule if you don't understand the interests.Failureofafriend (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a section about which countries this law is implemented in, and the differences between the implementations? Also, I agree with Dxco above. --Apoc2400 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

whenever a rule of law is described as a "common-law," it means that for some significant part of history, the rule was applicable in some significant part of the world influenced by the United Kingdom (e.g., england, the united states, india). there are some exceptions (e.g. the US state of Louisiana, Scotland).

also, note that some common-law rules are no longer the law anywhere presently -- the rules are studied to help teach legal reasoning and to provide historical background for present rules. Streamless 20:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to address the concerns on this page. First of all, as a law student I thought this was fairly well written. The rule is hard to understand (even for lawyers), but nonetheless important to understand if you are writing a will in a jurisdiction that has kept it. As for those jurisdictions, I agree that if someone could add a portion about where it applies, that would be helpful. For starters, it is only going to apply in countries with a common law system (think British colonies), but even within those countries, different provinces or states have different rules. For example, in Canada, Saskatchewan has maintained the rule, while Alberta (along with many other jurisdictions, has developed a wait and see rule where they actually see if the rule is broken (in real time) before voiding the clause in question. As for examples of something in a will that would break the rule, the entry speaks of the unborn spouse being a possibility. Another simple example would be if I stated in my will that I wanted to leave something to all my grandchildren upon them reaching the age of 21. In this case, the 21 years would start ticking at my death and since more grandchildren could be born after that time (and therefore not be 21 within the 21 year window), the rule would make the whole clause void. I doubt I've made any of this any clearer but I've tried.

I just want to add, for the record, that I hate the damn rule and it can go to hell for all I care.

It would be useful to add a section about the possible workaround in which the benefactor, instead of willing property to the distant-in-time beneficiary, instead creates a trust or corporation whose purpose is to grant property to that beneficiary: in which jurisdictions does this work? Have there been examples? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)