Agenda for 14th Class Admin stuff Name plates Handouts Slides Leases I California Association of Realtors Residential Lease Review of last class Estates (continued) Rule Against Perpetuities

Assignment for Next Class I Review any questions we did not discuss in class today Read: Leases I Questions to Think about / Writing Assignments Lease Hypotheticals on pp. 4-5 1 (WG1), 2 (WG2) ….. 7 (WG7) If you have a lease, read your lease and determine what kind of leasehold you have? Quote the relevant language in your answer. If you do not have a lease, read the California Association of Realtors lease and classify the kind (or kinds) or leasehold in that document. (All WGs) Questions on p. 6 1 (WG1), 2 (WG2) , 3 (WG3) Do you think the court in Hannan v Dusch reached the correct decision? If you were deciding similar case today, would you choose the English or American rule? Would you make your preferred rule mandatory, or would you allow the parties to vary it by contract? (WG4) If you were drafting a lease for a landlord, what language would your include addressing the issue in Hannan v. Dusch? (WG5)

Assignment for Next Class II Questions to Think about / Writing Assignments (cont’) Does your lease address the issue in Hannan v Dusch? Does it choose the English rule? The American rule? Or something different? Quote the relevant language. If you do not have a lease, answer this question for the California Association of Realtors lease. (All WGs) Questions on pp. 17-18 1 (WG6), 2 (WG7), 3 (WG1), 4 (WG2), 5 (WG3) Does your lease allow assignment and/or subletting? With or without consent of the landlord? Quote the relevant language. If you do not have a lease, answer this question for the California Association of Realtors lease. (All WGs) Do you think the court in Julian v. Christopher reached the correct decision? Why would a landlord want the right to withhold consent arbitrarily and unreasonably? (WG4) Questions on p. 27 1a (WG5), 1b (WG6), 1c (WG7) Optional: Examples & Explanations Chapters 15 & 16

Estate Problems (cont’) 13) To A for life, then to A’s children for life, then, after all of A’s children have died, to USC to house visiting law professors. A has no children at the time of the grant. 14) I grant Netherfield to A for life, then to such of A’s children who serve in the military before A’s death for their lives, then to the first child born to my son C.

Rule Against Perpetuities No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. “At the creation of the interest” Time of conveyance for inter vivos transfers (e.g transfers during grantor’s lifetime) Time of death, if interest conveyed by will “Life in being” Anyone mentioned in instrument who might be alive Choose person most likely to make the interest valid Interests that may not vest (and thus may fail) Contingent remainder Vested remainder subject to open Executory interest NOT Vested remainder, unless subject to open Future interests held by original grantor and heirs Reversion, Possibility of reverter, Right of entry

RAP Problems (Please assume that all persons represented by letters are living when the limitation is made. Also assume that none of the persons described by such words as “children” is in existence unless so stated.) The question is which limitations fail under the Rule. 1. O devises Blackacre “upon the death of all my children and of all my grandchildren born or conceived at my death, to my eldest male descendant then living and his heirs.” O leaves children and grandchildren born and in gestation at his death. 2. O devises Blackacre “twenty-one years after the death of all my children and all my grandchildren living at my death, to my issue then living per stirpes in fee.” O leaves children and grandchildren at his death. 3. O devises Blackacre “thirty years after my death to my eldest descendant then living and his or her heirs.” O leaves children surviving him. 4. O devises Blackacre “to the first of my grandchildren who reaches twenty-one.” O leaves children at his death. 5. O devises Blackacre “to A and his heirs, but if B or his heirs ever pay A or his heirs $1,000 to B and his heirs.”

RAP Problems II 6. O devises Blackacre “to my eldest child for life, remainder to its first child in fee, but if my eldest child have no child, or having such it die under twenty-one to B in fee.” O leaves a child at his death. 7. O by settlement made at the time of his marriage conveys Blackacre “to T on trust to pay the net income to O for life, on A’s death to pay the net income to A’s eldest child for life, and on the death of such child to convey Blackacre to its first child in fee.” 8. [omitted] 9. O devises Blackacre “to A for life, remainder to any widow he may leave for life, remainder to B’s children who survive the widow in fee.” 10. O having a term of twenty-one years, devised it “to B, but if all his descendants ever cease to bear the name of Brown, it shall go to C.” 11. O devises Blackacre “to A and his heirs, but if A leaves no child who shall attain twenty-five, to B for life.” 12. O devises Blackacre “to A in fee but if all B’s children die under twenty-five, and B survives them, to B in fee.”

RAP Problems III 13. O devises Blackacre “to A for life, the fee simple to the first of his children who reaches twenty-five.” Suppose (a) a jurisdiction where a contingent remainder fails for lack of a freehold to support it; (b) a jurisdiction where it does not fail. 14. O bequeaths a picture “to B, but if at any time A and all her descendants are dead, the picture shall go to the children of B living at my death.” B has children living when O dies. 15. O bequeaths a picture “to B, but if at any time A and all her descendants are dead, the picture shall go to the children of B then living.” 16. O bequeaths a picture “to B, but if at any time A and all her descendants are dead, the picture shall go to the children of B who are living at my death and who survive A and her descendants.” B has children living when O dies.

RAP Problems IV Consider the following variations on the will clause in Jee v Audley. Are they valid under the Rule against Perpetuities? I give Blackacre to Mary Hall for her life and then to her children, if she has any who survive her. If she does not have any children who survive her, then I give the remainder to the children of John and Elizabeth Jee then living. I give Blackacre to Mary Hall, but if Mary Hall and her descendants all die, I give Blackacre to the children of John and Elizabeth Jee who are alive when I die. I give Blackacre to Mary Hall, but if Mary Hall and her descendants all die, I give Blackacre to the children of John and Elizabeth Jee then living. I give Blackacre to Mary Hall, but if Mary Hall and her descendants all die, I give Blackacre to the children of John and Elizabeth Jee then living who were also alive at the time I died. Does the result in Jee v Audley make sense as a matter of law or policy?