I'm not clear on if or how the "A never leaves the premises" example violates RAP. Won't we know in A's lifetime whether or not she leaves the premises?
Stephanie Lutz Thank you for your comment. Remember that “To A” is equivalent “To A and her heirs”. Therefore, we cannot know if within the perpetuity period (A’s life plus 21 years) that B’s interest will vest since one of A’s heirs could trigger the condition sometime after the perpetuity period. Therefore, there is a RAP violation. Note, there is a shortcut rule: An executory interest without a stated time limit is a RAP VIOLATION! If you apply the shortcut rule, then you do not have to do the analysis. To conclude a RAP violation, all you have to recognize is that the condition could happen anytime in the future (i.e. A or A’s heirs could leave the premises a million years from now). Further, instead of A having a Fee simple subject to executory limitation and B having a shifting executory interest, A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter because B’s future interest is void (B has nothing).
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
dude, your videos are a life saver
I'm not clear on if or how the "A never leaves the premises" example violates RAP. Won't we know in A's lifetime whether or not she leaves the premises?
Stephanie Lutz
Thank you for your comment. Remember that “To A” is equivalent “To A and her heirs”. Therefore, we cannot know if within the perpetuity period (A’s life plus 21 years) that B’s interest will vest since one of A’s heirs could trigger the condition sometime after the perpetuity period. Therefore, there is a RAP violation.
Note, there is a shortcut rule: An executory interest without a stated time limit is a RAP VIOLATION!
If you apply the shortcut rule, then you do not have to do the analysis. To conclude a RAP violation, all you have to recognize is that the condition could happen anytime in the future (i.e. A or A’s heirs could leave the premises a million years from now). Further, instead of A having a Fee simple subject to executory limitation and B having a shifting executory interest, A has a fee simple determinable and O has a possibility of reverter because B’s future interest is void (B has nothing).
Bar exam saver!!
in NSW, Australia the statutory perp period is 80 years.