property estate multiple choice

A father properly conveyed a parcel of land to his daughter as a birthday present. The deed, which was properly recorded, contained language granting the parcel to the daughter "so long as she remains single and unmarried." Five years later, the daughter was validly married. One year later, the daughter conveyed the parcel to an investor. Angered by the daughter's conveyance to the investor, the father filed an action against the daughter and the investor to quiet title in the parcel.

Is the father likely to prevail in his action to quiet title against the daughter and the investor?

No, because the daughter's conveyance to the investor did not trigger the father's possibility of reverter.

No, because the father conveyed the parcel to the daughter in fee simple.

Yes, because the father owns the parcel in fee simple.

Yes, because the father's possibility of reverter was created by implication.

No, because the father conveyed the parcel to the daughter in fee simple.

A fee simple determinable, which is created with words such as "for so long as," terminates automatically on the happening of a named future event. However, if the triggering event or condition named in the deed is against public policy, such as a limitation against marriage, the condition will be stricken and a fee simple absolute will be created rather than a fee simple determinable. Here, the daughter's deed would convey fee simple ownership of the parcel, as the restriction's prohibition on marriage would be against public policy. Therefore, this answer is correct.

A farmer died and was survived by his wife, his son, and his daughter. The farmer's validly probated will devised his entire estate to his wife, except for one tract of farmland that was devised "to my wife for life, then to my grandchildren who survive her and reach the age of 18." At the time of the farmer's death, he did not have any grandchildren. Ten years later, the son had a child, the farmer's first grandchild. One year later, the wife died, survived by the son, the daughter, and the grandchild. The wife's validly probated will devised her entire estate to the daughter.

Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the ownership of the tract of farmland?

The daughter owns the tract in fee simple, because she inherited the wife's reversion.

The daughter owns the tract in fee simple, because the contingent remainder held by the farmer's grandchild failed to vest.

The daughter owns the tract in fee simple subject to executory interest, and the farmer's grandchild has an executory interest.

The son and the daughter own the tract as tenants in common, because they inherited the wife's reversion.

The daughter owns the tract in fee simple subject to executory interest, and the farmer's grandchild has an executory interest.

A life estate, which is created when property is granted to a grantee "for life," lasts for the duration of the grantee's life. A remainder is a future interest created in a third person. A remainder will be contingent if its takers are unascertained or the interest is subject to a condition subsequent and, therefore, does not fall in automatically on the natural termination of the previous estate. If the conveyance creating a contingent remainder does not state who will take the estate if the remainder does not vest, the grantor will retain a reversion in the estate. Under the modern law, which is the majority view, if a contingent remainder has not vested at the natural termination of the prior vested estate, the contingent remainder becomes an executory interest.

Here, the farmer's wife inherited a life estate in the tract of farmland, while the farmer's unborn grandchildren inherited a contingent remainder. This remainder was contingent because there were no members of the class born yet, and once born, the grandchildren must survive the wife and reach the age of 18 in order to take the tract. As the remainder is contingent, the farmer reserved a reversion that was inherited by the wife as part of the farmer's estate. When the son had a child, the remainder remained contingent because the child still had to survive the farmer's wife and reach 18 to take the tract. When the wife died one year later, the grandchild survived her but had not reached the age of 18. However, rather than be destroyed, the grandchild's contingent remainder became an executory interest that would take effect upon the grandchild reaching the age of 18. The reversion held by the wife was devised, as part of the wife's estate, to the daughter, and thus the daughter would presently own the tract in fee simple subject to executory limitation. Thus, this answer is correct.

A philanthropist granted a building "to a local non-profit for so long as the non-profit uses the building to further the mission of helping children and families but, if the building is not used to serve the mission, to a national non-profit." The local non-profit eventually outgrew the building and began to rent it to generate income instead.

Who is the rightful owner of the building?

The local non-profit.

The national non-profit.

The philanthropist.

The philanthropist and national non-profit as tenants in common.

The national non-profit.

A farmer died and was survived by his son and daughter. The farmer's will, which was validly probated, devised his entire estate to the daughter, except for a large tract of land that was devised "to my son for life, then to my grandchildren." One year later, the daughter gave birth to a son, the farmer's grandson.

The jurisdiction has adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities ("USRAP").

Which of the following statements most accurately describes the ownership of the tract of land?


The son has a life estate, and the farmer's grandson has a vested remainder.

The son has a life estate, and the farmer's grandson has a vested remainder subject to open.

The son has a life estate, the farmer's grandson has a vested remainder subject to open, and the daughter has a reversion.

The son has a life estate, the farmer's grandchildren have a contingent remainder, and the daughter has a reversion.

The son has a life estate, and the farmer's grandson has a vested remainder subject to open.

A doctor died and was survived by her husband and her son. The doctor's validly probated will devised her house "to my husband for life, then to my son." One year later, the husband began using the house as a bed and breakfast that quickly became very profitable. When the son learned that the house was being used as a bed and breakfast, he demanded that the husband pay him a portion of the profits.

Is the husband obligated to pay the son a portion of the profits derived from the use of the house as a bed and breakfast?

No, because the husband is entitled to keep the income derived from the estate.

No, because the son's remainder is not vested.

Yes, because the husband did not obtain the son's permission to permanently alter the house.

Yes, because the husband's conversion of the house into a bed and breakfast constitutes voluntary waste.

No, because the husband is entitled to keep the income derived from the estate.

A father properly conveyed a parcel of land to his son, as a graduation present. The deed, which was properly recorded, contained language granting the parcel to his son "for residential purposes only." Five years later, the son conveyed the parcel to a developer by a deed that stated the conveyance was "in fee simple." The developer immediately began constructing a large office building on the parcel. When the father learned about the office building, he filed an action against the son and the developer to quiet title in the parcel.

Is the father likely to prevail in his quiet-title action against the son and the developer?

No, because the deed to the son failed to reserve a possibility of reverter for the father.

No, because the son conveyed the parcel to the developer in fee simple.

Yes, because the developer had notice of the limitation contained in the son's recorded deed.

Yes, because the father properly exercised his power of termination.

No, because the son conveyed the parcel to the developer in fee simple.

A man conveyed land "to my wife, but if she ever conveys her interest in the property to anyone, then the estate shall immediately transfer to my sister." A year after the conveyance, the wife took out a second mortgage on the house. The sister filed suit against the wife to quiet title to the house.

Is the sister likely to prevail in her action to quiet title?

No, because any restraint on alienation is void.

No, because the wife had a fee simple estate.

Yes, because of the forfeiture restraint.

Yes, because the wife had a life estate on the land.

No, because the wife had a fee simple estate.

A man conveyed land "to my wife for life, but if she ever sells, mortgages, or otherwise transfers her interest in the property, then the estate shall immediately transfer to my sister." A year after the conveyance, the wife took out a second mortgage on the house. The sister filed suit against the wife to quiet title to the house.

Is the sister likely to prevail in her action to quiet title?

No, because any restraint on alienation is void.

No, because of the forfeiture restraint.

Yes, because of the forfeiture restraint.

Yes, because the wife had a life estate on the land.

Yes, because the wife had a life estate on the land.

A church member properly conveyed a tract of land by a valid deed to his church "on condition that the land be used for the construction of a new church building." One year later, the church member died, survived by his estranged son, the member's sole intestate heir. The church member's valid will devised his entire estate to his girlfriend. Three months later, the church decided not to build a new church on the land. Instead, the church sold the tract and delivered a deed to a developer, who immediately began building a shopping center on the tract. The estranged son then filed an action to quiet title in the tract against the church, the developer, and the girlfriend.

Who is the rightful owner of the tract of land?

The church, because the developer failed to record his deed.

The developer, because the church conveyed title to the developer in fee simple.

The estranged son, because he inherited the church member's power of termination.

The girlfriend, because the church member's will devised his entire estate to her.

The developer, because the church conveyed title to the developer in fee simple.

A landlord died, leaving a valid will that devised an apartment building "to my brother on condition that the building is used for residential purposes only, and if it ceases to be used for such purposes, then to my daughter." The brother immediately began managing the apartment building and collecting the rental payments from the tenants. Five years later, the brother properly conveyed the building to an investor. The investor took over management of the apartment building and demanded that the daughter begin paying the mortgage payments and taxes. The daughter refused and filed an action against the investor to quiet title, asserting her right to ownership of the apartment building.

Is the daughter likely to prevail in her suit to quiet title?

No, because the brother properly conveyed his fee simple subject to condition subsequent to the investor.

No, because the investor is using the apartment building for residential purposes.

Yes, because the daughter became the owner of the apartment building when the brother no longer used it for residential purposes.

Yes, because the investor's attempted conveyance of a fee simple subject to executory interest was void.

No, because the investor is using the apartment building for residential purposes.