Here's a question that has my TA's and I stumped. Forum

[heavoldgotjuice]

I am positive. Life estate is not inheritable. C's heirs get nothing.

[BigZuck]

I think the only question is if B gets the life estate back if C predeceases him. Originally I thought that was the case but once I actually gave it some thought I think B has totally transferred those rights away and won't get the life estate back unless C transfers it back to him (while both are still living, of course) or if C dies and A gets it back and once again gives the life estate to B.

Pretty sure that once B gives the life estate to C it would never automatically go back to B.

[Danger Zone]

Yeah there's no reason it would go back to B.

[bt855]

If C dies before B, A now gets the FSA, not B because B conveyed to C.

Are you sure on this last part? I would think C's heirs could hold onto it until B's death.

Correct. C has a life estate pur autre vie B (for the life of B), which is fully alienable. C's heirs retain the interest until B dies and it reverts back to O. Life estates are generally not inheritable only because if the person has a life estate measured by his own life it reverts back to O at his death. But they are fully alienable (thus devisable), otherwise B couldn't have conveyed it to C in the first place.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Yeah there's no reason it would go back to B.

So, you're suggesting that despite B's clear manifestation of intent that C's interest in the property terminates upon C's death (aka, a life estate), this was an impermissible license?

[Hipster but Athletic]

Future Interests/estates.

A owns the FSA

A-->B "for life"

B now has a life estate.

B-->C "for life"

C now has the life estate.

Will the life estate end upon the death of B or C?

Thank you!

B can't give more than what he has. Life estate ends upon B's death. That's one of the reasons why life estates are disfavored nowadays.

Disclaimer: I'm trying to remember this from my 1L property I could be wrong.

I'm still confused.

B is giving all he has by giving the life estate to C.

If you tell someone you're giving them a life estate but in reality, your interest expires upon your death, you've obviously conveyed an interest larger than what you lawfully own

[BigZuck]

Future Interests/estates.

A owns the FSA

A-->B "for life"

B now has a life estate.

B-->C "for life"

C now has the life estate.

Will the life estate end upon the death of B or C?

Thank you!

B can't give more than what he has. Life estate ends upon B's death. That's one of the reasons why life estates are disfavored nowadays.

Disclaimer: I'm trying to remember this from my 1L property I could be wrong.

I'm still confused.

B is giving all he has by giving the life estate to C.

If you tell someone you're giving them a life estate but in reality, your interest expires upon your death, you've obviously conveyed an interest larger than what you lawfully own

pur autre vie dawg. It's a life estate measured by the life of another (the grantor, in the case of B giving it to C)

[Hipster but Athletic]

It's both, dawg. You think that life tenants can't possibly convey land conditionally?

[bt855]

Yeah there's no reason it would go back to B.

So, you're suggesting that despite B's clear manifestation of intent that C's interest in the property terminates upon C's death (aka, a life estate), this was an impermissible license?

It's a weirdly worded conveyance, so I guess ignore my previous post. But the way it's worded, B conveyed a life estate pur autre vie B to C in life estate. Therefore, C has a life estate pur autre vie B in life estate, B retains a reversion in life estate, O retains a reversion in FSA. So if C dies before B it reverts back to B.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Exactly

[BigZuck]

It's both, dawg. You think that life tenants can't possibly convey land conditionally?

I'm really not sure if I was agreeing with you and trying to back you up or disputing something you were saying.

You're such a trolly goober dawg, it gets me all disoriented when you post in the on topics. I don't know if you're trying to be serious or not.

[heavoldgotjuice]

It's not a weirdly worded conveyance. Obviously the question was written as a question, not an analysis.

Whomever wrote the problem couldn't simply tell you that B conveyed a Life Estate pur autre vie, or else it would not be a problem at all.

Moreover, B conveyed a "life estate" C ... this would not be a greater interest than he or she had because he or she in fact had a life estate; however, by necessity, when one conveys his or her life estate, he or she is conveying a life estate pur autre vie BECAUSE one cannot convey a greater interest than he or she has...

I hate property, but this is basics dawgs

[bt855]

It's not a weirdly worded conveyance. Obviously the question was written as a question, not an analysis.

Whomever wrote the problem couldn't simply tell you that B conveyed a Life Estate pur autre vie, or else it would not be a problem at all.

Moreover, B conveyed a "life estate" C ... this would not be a greater interest than he or she had because he or she in fact had a life estate; however, by necessity, when one conveys his or her life estate, he or she is conveying a life estate pur autre vie BECAUSE one cannot convey a greater interest than he or she has...

I hate property, but this is basics dawgs

You're right, not weirdly worded, just an odd question to ask with two life estates and two reversions. I think he meant to ask a single life estate with a transfer to show knowledge of pur autre vie...but who knows, I'm wasted.

[Mr.Throwback]

Here is the response from my professor who is chair of NY bar on property, a leading scholar in future interests and the RAP, and can be found all over your text (if using Dukeminer)

"Interesting q. I would classify as a life estate pur autre vie. If C died before A, then the interest should pass to C’s successors in interest."

[Danger Zone]

Here is my response from my professor who is chair of NY bar on property, a leading scholar in future interests and the RAP, and can be found all over your text (if using Dukeminer)

"Interesting q. I would classify as a life estate pur autre vie. If C died before A, then the interest should pass to C’s successors in interest."

Nice. Feels good to remember future interests correctly. Where's stillwater and the property tree house club when ya need them?

Also does anyone want to start a band called "stillwater and the property tree house club"?

[suzige]

If C dies before B, A now gets the FSA, not B because B conveyed to C.

Are you sure on this last part? I would think C's heirs could hold onto it until B's death.

Correct. C has a life estate pur autre vie B (for the life of B), which is fully alienable. C's heirs retain the interest until B dies and it reverts back to O. Life estates are generally not inheritable only because if the person has a life estate measured by his own life it reverts back to O at his death. But they are fully alienable (thus devisable), otherwise B couldn't have conveyed it to C in the first place.

I agree w/ this.

[WhiskeynCoke]

It's a life estate pur autre vie.

A gives Life Estate to B (A retains a reversion).

B gives Life Estate to C (A still has a reversion, B has nothing, C now has a Life Estate for the duration of B's life)

When B dies, C's Life Estate is no more, and A has the FSA.

If C dies before B, A now gets the FSA, not B because B conveyed to C.

This is wrong. If C dies before B, B gets the estate back for the rest of his life (B has a contingent remainder life estate). A has a reversion that only turns into a FSA upon B's death, because he gave B the possessory interest in the estate "for life." B has full, alienable possessory rights of the estate until he dies. B's transfer to C and C's death have no effect on A's future interest.

Edit: this is the case because B conveyed to C "for life," which is obviously non-heritable (C's heirs have no future interest). C has a life estate that ends either: (1) on C's death, or (2) on B's death, whichever comes 1st. If B did not limit his conveyance to C "for life," then yes, C's heirs would hold on to it until B died, at which point it goes back to A. (B would never get it back).

[BigZuck]

It's a life estate pur autre vie.

A gives Life Estate to B (A retains a reversion).

B gives Life Estate to C (A still has a reversion, B has nothing, C now has a Life Estate for the duration of B's life)

When B dies, C's Life Estate is no more, and A has the FSA.

If C dies before B, A now gets the FSA, not B because B conveyed to C.

This is wrong. If C dies before B, B gets the estate back for the rest of his life (B has a contingent remainder life estate). A has a reversion that only turns into a FSA upon B's death, because he gave B the possessory interest in the estate "for life." B has full, alienable possessory rights of the estate until he dies. B's transfer to C and C's death have no effect on A's future interest.

Edit: this is the case because B conveyed to C "for life," which is obviously non-heritable (C's heirs have no future interest). C has a life estate that ends either: (1) on C's death, or (2) on B's death, whichever comes 1st. If B did not limit his conveyance to C "for life," then yes, C's heirs would hold on to it until B died, at which point it goes back to A. (B would never get it back).

Why do we know that B has a remainder? That's the only thing that gets me. Why isnt it that B totally transfers his interest away for good? I get why fee simple absolute bros maintain a reversion after life estates but why do autre vie dawgs automatically cop DAT REMAINDER? Gotta source?

[09042014]

It's a life estate pur autre vie.

A gives Life Estate to B (A retains a reversion).

B gives Life Estate to C (A still has a reversion, B has nothing, C now has a Life Estate for the duration of B's life)

When B dies, C's Life Estate is no more, and A has the FSA.

If C dies before B, A now gets the FSA, not B because B conveyed to C.

This is wrong. If C dies before B, B gets the estate back for the rest of his life (B has a contingent remainder life estate). A has a reversion that only turns into a FSA upon B's death, because he gave B the possessory interest in the estate "for life." B has full, alienable possessory rights of the estate until he dies. B's transfer to C and C's death have no effect on A's future interest.

Edit: this is the case because B conveyed to C "for life," which is obviously non-heritable (C's heirs have no future interest). C has a life estate that ends either: (1) on C's death, or (2) on B's death, whichever comes 1st. If B did not limit his conveyance to C "for life," then yes, C's heirs would hold on to it until B died, at which point it goes back to A. (B would never get it back).

Why do we know that B has a remainder? That's the only thing that gets me. Why isnt it that B totally transfers his interest away for good? I get why fee simple absolute bros maintain a reversion after life estates but why do autre vie dawgs automatically cop DAT REMAINDER? Gotta source?

Because it said "to C for life" which implied a life estate. I get that it's ambiguous, but that was probably the intention.

[hous]

I'm sorry, but this is a very simple hypo.

[Danger Zone]

I'm sorry, but this is a very simple hypo.

And you're not gonna weigh in on the answer? Thanks for this extremely useful post bro.

[insd]

Look up life estate pur autre vie.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Look up life estate pur autre vie.

Pur autre vie occurs when a life tenant impermissably attempts to convey a FSA to a third party. The situation we're instead presented here involves a conveyance that necessarily implicates lives of B and C and your attempts to apply old-world legal jargon to the situation confuses a very simple problem. C's estate can and will terminate upon his own death OR another life. Trying to squeeze this into "pur autre vie" is inappropriate.

Sublicenses can have terms, and sub-licensees can also lose their license due to the behavior of the sub-licensor. The default rule is that exclusive licenses are sublicensable but not assignable without language to the contrary. Why you're trying to mold this into "pur autre vie" just because one contingency of C's rights is that B remain alive is beyond me.

[2807]

This is a good hypo that forces you to address the unknown "life" that measures the life estates at issue.

There is only analysis, there is not an answer.
Each party would define the issue.. and the corresponding required "life" to achieve the victory they want.
You want an answer?... ask a jury.


Looks like you folks have realized the dilemma with this.

Anyone taking a hard line is missing the objective analysis that would be required.

I thought this was a slam dunk too, and then I had to catch myself.
It is actually a good question that causes an extra level of analysis if C dies before B.

[WhiskeynCoke]

This is a good hypo that forces you to address the unknown "life" that measures the life estates at issue.

There is only analysis, there is not an answer.
Each party would define the issue.. and the corresponding required "life" to achieve the victory they want.
You want an answer?... ask a jury.


Looks like you folks have realized the dilemma with this.

Anyone taking a hard line is missing the objective analysis that would be required.

I thought this was a slam dunk too, and then I had to catch myself.
It is actually a good question that causes an extra level of analysis if C dies before B.

Meh, I think you're overplaying it. It's only confusing at first because C's interest ends with either one of two lives. It's just basically a combination of C having a life estate AND a life estate pur autre vie (one that ends with the death of another - B).

And to Hipster but athletic (sweet fixie, yo?), you're wrong about pur autre vie - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pur_autre_vie

Also, the point about the BS old world jargon would be valid, except ALL this stupid shit is old world jargon we have to learn for our property final (& the BAR). Yes it's confusing. That's the point of this thread.