I spent two semesters of law school (including my ENTIRE spring break), countless office hours, AND days watching (and rewatching) the Barbri property videos trying to understand present estates, future interests, and RAP. I FINALLY understand it thanks to your video(s)!!!! You are an INCREDIBLE teacher!!! I feel like the fog of my law school years and Barbri bar prep has finally been lifted!!! Thank you so much for posting these videos!
I really dig this guy’s hand/arm movements and gestures. Not being facetious; it helps me stay focused, like we’re having a personal conversation. Thanks.
GENIUS!!! You are the first person, professor, treatise, author, or otherwise, who has taken the time to explain every minute step of every problem in enough detail that I actually understand when and why RAP invalidates an interest (or not). Too many instructors skip over steps as if they assume that I have been a Wills, Trusts, and Estates attorney all my life. I am definitely not one, and never will be. I just need to Ace my final exam. ;) THANK YOU!!!
I see you liked my comment, and I want to follow up! I watched ALL of your Wills, Trusts, and Estates lectures and aced the exam-actually received an email from my professor telling me that I got the highest grade in the class. THANK YOU again!!!
You REALLY opened up my understanding on this concept. I just finished watching Barbri's version, and I watched a view other TH-cam attempts on other channels to explain this. I went over this in my Barbri books, and I even have Crushendo (with the cartoons and everything lol). This is one concept I just couldn't grasp until I watched your video. I wanted to express my gratitude to you as I prepare for the CA bar exam this coming October. God bless you and thank you!
Just want to say thanks. I am working over full time, trying to be a good husband and father so I feel like I am trying to do law school on about 30% percent of the time I really need. The lectures that I listen to have so much wasted time. Since I found your lectures I get so much value in less than half the time. Thanks for doing this.
Q: Ex3, when using Amy as the validating life, what if Chris dies before Amy, and when Amy dies, Bobby has no children. But later Bobby got a child 22 years after Amy dies. Isn't that a scenario that the class is still open 21yr after Amy dies? Rule of convenience doesn't apply because it's 22 years after Amy dies, and the class won't close until Bobby dies.
I don't understand how in they hypothetical question (question 1) where "if Amy ever consumes alcohol on Greenacre, then to Bobby and his heirs" the 21 years counted after Amy's death and not 21 years after the conveyance of Greenacre to Amy. If Amy lives on Greenacre for more than 21 years but suddenly drinks alcohol on the 22nd year, would that be grounds for invaliding RAP for Bobby's future interest?
Step 2: the perpetuity window starts when the property is transferred. The perpetuity window starts with Amy(having been transferred the property), when Amy dies, THAT’S when the “clock” starts. Then, we can move to Step 3: Bobby’s interest can vest when, as in your example, Amy drinks alcohol on Greenacre(it doesn’t matter when she does because the “clock” doesn’t start until she dies), and it can forever fail to feat if she dies without consuming alcohol on Greenacre. Moving to step 4: Amy is a relevant life that can be considered(others can be tested but only 1 is necessary to satisfy). Now with Step 5: Looking into the crystal ball. We can see that if Amy drinks alcohol on Greenacre, Bobby’s interest will vest. If Amy dies without drinking alcohol on Greenacre, Bobby no longer has an interest in the property. Also remember that they are transferring a fee simple absolute to Bobby. You can also think of Bobby as immoral (as it will be his then to whoever he wants to give it to). Therefore, this is different from the other example in how nobly could drink on the premises because alcohol could still be consumed 21 years AFTER Amy dies.
I was thinking through #4 in this manner: Would we know 21 years after Amy (measurable life) died, whether her children will graduate from law school? No, because since the class is still open and Amy could have a child at childbirth, that child (last in the class) would most likely be unable to graduate from law school within 21 years (geniuses are rare!) I wonder if this is a proper way to look at it. Feedback would be awesome! Thanks so much for this video :-)
For example three: if after conveyance Chris died, then afterwards Amy died, then Bobby had another kid 22 years later, wouldn't this be outside the perpetuity window? rule of convenience shouldn't apply because Chris dies before Amy, so Bobby has no living kin.
Then there would be a reversion back to O the original transferor. However if Chris dies but Amy remains alive, wouldnt it still be possible for the FI to vest 21 years after Chris' death
the rule of convenience is a rule of construction and RAP is a rule of law, you had to satisfy the rules of law before you can even think about rules of construction
Hope this is not the blind leading the blind here, but I think it’s because the class gift/conveyance does not vest until BOTH (1) the class closes AND (2) all conditions for every member of the class are satisfied. So while the Rule of Convenience can close the class when Amy dies, it’s possible that the other child will not have graduated law school by then (and may not for more than 21 more years).
For example 2, specifically the first child to reach 18 example, how theoretical do we have to get? In the What if Amy has eggs frozen and four years after her death, her partner decides to use a surrogate and Amy's eggs to have a child. Is that Amy's child, and does it violate the rule against perpetuities?
This is discussed in perpetuities reform and some jurisdictions might mention it but for a law school exam you won't analyze it with this. Maybe you can mention it in one sentence at the end of your analysis, but classically, no
In #4, couldn’t be define the class as “Amy’s kids that graduate law school” and not “Amy’s kids in general” ? If we defined the class in the former way, wouldn’t it not violate RAP since it would be vested in Bobby? Genuine question, 1L here...
The RAP is a statute of limitations regarding property ... Work problems - should be working problems not watching vids (after learning the law, which is the point of the video).
Re. Class closing at 52.50: what if bobby died but had his sperm frozen and bobbys wife has his kids after his death? Are those kids included in the class?
![Concurrent Estates: Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety [LEAP Preview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eRYJmac-VpM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Concurrent Estates: Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety [LEAP Preview]](/img/tr.png)
![How to Analyze Present Estates and Future Interests on Real Property Questions [PART 1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/L0tVSi1MGEI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Destructibility of Contingent Remainders, Rule in Shelley's Case, & Doctrine of Worthier Title [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V6elJq8NcG0/mqdefault.jpg)
I spent two semesters of law school (including my ENTIRE spring break), countless office hours, AND days watching (and rewatching) the Barbri property videos trying to understand present estates, future interests, and RAP. I FINALLY understand it thanks to your video(s)!!!! You are an INCREDIBLE teacher!!! I feel like the fog of my law school years and Barbri bar prep has finally been lifted!!! Thank you so much for posting these videos!
Awesome, thank you for the support! I'm glad the videos have helped it all click for you. 👍
Thanks for confirming why I didn't like Barbri from the few books I bought.
These are literally my sentiments!
Can't believe you talked 80 minutes non-stop in such a clear and concise way! You are awesome! Your explanation was a life-savior!
Thank you so much! Glad the video was helpful for you.
I really dig this guy’s hand/arm movements and gestures. Not being facetious; it helps me stay focused, like we’re having a personal conversation. Thanks.
You are a patient, patient man. Thanks for taking the time!
Of course-happy to help!
Thanks!
GENIUS!!! You are the first person, professor, treatise, author, or otherwise, who has taken the time to explain every minute step of every problem in enough detail that I actually understand when and why RAP invalidates an interest (or not). Too many instructors skip over steps as if they assume that I have been a Wills, Trusts, and Estates attorney all my life. I am definitely not one, and never will be. I just need to Ace my final exam. ;) THANK YOU!!!
Thank you so much! I'm glad this helped RAP click for you.
I see you liked my comment, and I want to follow up! I watched ALL of your Wills, Trusts, and Estates lectures and aced the exam-actually received an email from my professor telling me that I got the highest grade in the class. THANK YOU again!!!
@@hrm294ever Awesome-excellent work!
I like how even his mistakes are consistent it’s good loving it. Thank you!
You REALLY opened up my understanding on this concept. I just finished watching Barbri's version, and I watched a view other TH-cam attempts on other channels to explain this. I went over this in my Barbri books, and I even have Crushendo (with the cartoons and everything lol). This is one concept I just couldn't grasp until I watched your video. I wanted to express my gratitude to you as I prepare for the CA bar exam this coming October. God bless you and thank you!
Did you pass?
Awesome, I'm so glad this helped the topic click for you! Thank you for your support.
You are quite literally the only reason I’m going to get my JD degree.
Happy to help! 🙏
Just want to say thanks. I am working over full time, trying to be a good husband and father so I feel like I am trying to do law school on about 30% percent of the time I really need. The lectures that I listen to have so much wasted time. Since I found your lectures I get so much value in less than half the time. Thanks for doing this.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
For Ex. 3, if Chris died the future interest could still vest 21 years after Chris' death. How is that not a violation?
Excellent video, very helpful. Thank you, Michael!
Sure-happy to help!
Love this video! Watching 2 nights before property final - thank you!!
Thank you! Good luck on your final. 🙏
Absolutely love your videos. Please do a burden of proof vs. burden of persuasion video!
beyond reasonable doubt vs reasonable understanding clause
Thank you!
th-cam.com/video/qpthxkNQmbc/w-d-xo.html
You are a legend thank you for this.
Good job. Helped a lot.
Sure-happy to help!
What a beast. 80 mins non stop talking about RAP.
Thanks for tuning in!
@@studicata I passed the July 2022 UBE because of this video. Thank you Michael.
@@theredgiraffe Congratulations-well done! I'm glad the video was helpful in your bar preparation.
Very Helpful. Thank you so much. I wish you could do more examples/scenarios about this topic.
Thanks! Helps a lot.
Sure-happy to help!
you''re a great teacher, keep this going!
Thank you-will do!
Great video, thanks!!
Sure-happy to help!
Good teaching for sure!
Amy died so many times in this video it gotta be the world record 😂😂
Thank you! You do hate to see that for Amy.
@@studicata You're welcome! So true !
This is great! Thank you!
Thank you-happy to help!
please make videos for business association, your videos helps so much!
Sure-happy to help!
Corporations: th-cam.com/video/efyDcEwIk3o/w-d-xo.html
Partnerships: th-cam.com/video/akTm6LCzbRo/w-d-xo.html
Agency: th-cam.com/video/eHmhheFgiQA/w-d-xo.html
This guy should be canonized as a saint. He's an absolute life saver.
Bravo Sir, Thank You
Sure-happy to help!
Q: Ex3, when using Amy as the validating life, what if Chris dies before Amy, and when Amy dies, Bobby has no children. But later Bobby got a child 22 years after Amy dies. Isn't that a scenario that the class is still open 21yr after Amy dies? Rule of convenience doesn't apply because it's 22 years after Amy dies, and the class won't close until Bobby dies.
God damn within minutes, I finally understood what the rule is.
Awesome, I'm glad it clicked for you!
Haha this was hard thank you Mike!
Sure-happy to help!
Thank you so much! Amazing
Of course-happy to help!
bless you
Thank you!
I don't understand how in they hypothetical question (question 1) where "if Amy ever consumes alcohol on Greenacre, then to Bobby and his heirs" the 21 years counted after Amy's death and not 21 years after the conveyance of Greenacre to Amy. If Amy lives on Greenacre for more than 21 years but suddenly drinks alcohol on the 22nd year, would that be grounds for invaliding RAP for Bobby's future interest?
Step 2: the perpetuity window starts when the property is transferred. The perpetuity window starts with Amy(having been transferred the property), when Amy dies, THAT’S when the “clock” starts.
Then, we can move to Step 3: Bobby’s interest can vest when, as in your example, Amy drinks alcohol on Greenacre(it doesn’t matter when she does because the “clock” doesn’t start until she dies), and it can forever fail to feat if she dies without consuming alcohol on Greenacre.
Moving to step 4: Amy is a relevant life that can be considered(others can be tested but only 1 is necessary to satisfy).
Now with Step 5: Looking into the crystal ball. We can see that if Amy drinks alcohol on Greenacre, Bobby’s interest will vest. If Amy dies without drinking alcohol on Greenacre, Bobby no longer has an interest in the property.
Also remember that they are transferring a fee simple absolute to Bobby. You can also think of Bobby as immoral (as it will be his then to whoever he wants to give it to).
Therefore, this is different from the other example in how nobly could drink on the premises because alcohol could still be consumed 21 years AFTER Amy dies.
When there’s a class of heirs where two of three are vested, would both share the interest in real property of just one?
I was thinking through #4 in this manner: Would we know 21 years after Amy (measurable life) died, whether her children will graduate from law school? No, because since the class is still open and Amy could have a child at childbirth, that child (last in the class) would most likely be unable to graduate from law school within 21 years (geniuses are rare!) I wonder if this is a proper way to look at it. Feedback would be awesome! Thanks so much for this video :-)
*Amy could die at childbirth, child survives...
Can you please make a video for performance test tips
Does RAP only apply to land? Can it apply to, say, a diamond ring? Or a cattle?
he starts 2:45
For example three: if after conveyance Chris died, then afterwards Amy died, then Bobby had another kid 22 years later, wouldn't this be outside the perpetuity window? rule of convenience shouldn't apply because Chris dies before Amy, so Bobby has no living kin.
Then there would be a reversion back to O the original transferor. However if Chris dies but Amy remains alive, wouldnt it still be possible for the FI to vest 21 years after Chris' death
In #4, why can't the "rule of convenience" save Bobby's interest, that is, when Amy dies and the class closes? Thanks!
the rule of convenience is a rule of construction and RAP is a rule of law, you had to satisfy the rules of law before you can even think about rules of construction
Hope this is not the blind leading the blind here, but I think it’s because the class gift/conveyance does not vest until BOTH (1) the class closes AND (2) all conditions for every member of the class are satisfied.
So while the Rule of Convenience can close the class when Amy dies, it’s possible that the other child will not have graduated law school by then (and may not for more than 21 more years).
For example 2, specifically the first child to reach 18 example, how theoretical do we have to get? In the What if Amy has eggs frozen and four years after her death, her partner decides to use a surrogate and Amy's eggs to have a child. Is that Amy's child, and does it violate the rule against perpetuities?
This is discussed in perpetuities reform and some jurisdictions might mention it but for a law school exam you won't analyze it with this. Maybe you can mention it in one sentence at the end of your analysis, but classically, no
This helped.... some. My god I cannot fucking believe this is the law.
Yeah RAP is a beast.
In #4, couldn’t be define the class as “Amy’s kids that graduate law school” and not “Amy’s kids in general” ? If we defined the class in the former way, wouldn’t it not violate RAP since it would be vested in Bobby?
Genuine question, 1L here...
The RAP is a statute of limitations regarding property ... Work problems - should be working problems not watching vids (after learning the law, which is the point of the video).
Re. Class closing at 52.50: what if bobby died but had his sperm frozen and bobbys wife has his kids after his death? Are those kids included in the class?
Ps thanks for making this more bearable!
My property professor has said that we are supposed to disregard the possibility of a child being conceived after a parent's death
According to the rules of convience the door closes when Bobby died （because Chris can demand the interest already)
The rule of gestation probably applies to the sperm scenario.
@@kimeon03 Yep - it's often 9 months + 21 years.
This video is so helpful! Would #3 be a RAP violation if Chris dies before Amy, and then Bobby has a child 22 years after Amy's death?
Curious. How many of your students work at Disney? ;-)