rule against perpetuities (2024)

FAQs

What is the rule against perpetuities? ›

What Is the Rule Against Perpetuities? The rule against perpetuities stipulates that a will, estate plan or other legal document intending to transfer property ownership more than twenty-one years after the death of the primary recipient is void.

The traditional RAP says that no interest in real property is valid unless it must vest, or forever fail to vest, no later than 21 years after some life in being when the interest is created. In other words, the interest must be guaranteed to either vest or disappear within the 21-year period.

The rule against perpetuities (also known as the rule against remoteness of vesting) requires that future trust interests (that is, interests that do not take effect immediately) must be certain to vest within a defined period of time known as the perpetuity period.

State Bar Exam:

If you don't see that the RAP is regularly tested, you are probably in luck! For those of you taking the Multistate Essay Exam or the Uniform Bar Exam: Occasionally the Rule Against Perpetuities has been tested on the “Trusts and Future Interests” question of the Multistate Essay Exam.

modified to provide that the rule against perpetuities for the trusts is determined by reference to the death of the last to die among a group of individuals living on a date an interest is created and the group of individuals consist of descendants of the respective child and Individual who were living on Date 1, the ...

A perpetuity is a type of annuity that lasts forever. The stream of cash flows does not have an end date. In finance, a perpetuity calculation is used to determine the present value of a company's cash flows when discounted back at a certain rate.

Marge is 80 years old. She has three children, Bart, Lisa and Maggie, who are each in their 50s. Homer conveys a house “to Marge for life and then to the oldest of Marge's children who survive her when he or she reaches the age of 30.” This conveyance violates the rule.

9-1.1 - Rule Against Perpetuities. (a) (1) The absolute power of alienation is suspended when there are no persons in being by whom an absolute fee or estate in possession can be conveyed or transferred.

An optional statutory period of up to 80 years, under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. The common law period, which is the lifetime of the last to die of certain individuals alive when the interest is created (known as "lives in being" or "measuring lives") plus 21 years.

The rule against perpetuities is the most famous way laws reduced the ability to use legal mechanisms like wills to control the use of property after death. The rule prevents perpetual control of property after death and has been in existence for hundreds of years.

What happens if a conveyance violates the rule against perpetuities? ›

If there is no such limitation (it can vest any time between now and eternity), the conveyance violates the rule and it is void. If there is a limitation, determine which person or people are relevant in deciding when the future interest vests.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is the bane of every first-year law student's existence. It provides: no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. The rule is concise but complicated.

An optional statutory period of up to 80 years, under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. The common law period, which is the lifetime of the last to die of certain individuals alive when the interest is created (known as "lives in being" or "measuring lives") plus 21 years.

In perpetuity means forever. For example, someone may have the right to receive the profits from land in perpetuity. The term is also commonly used in the context of copyright.

“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.” So goes the notorious phrasing of the Rule Against Perpetuities (the “Rule”) coined by John Chipman Gray, who constructed the standard formulation of the Rule in his 1886 treatise.

If the Supreme Court had "ruled against" in a case, it means that they decided in favor of the opposing party or position. In other words, they did not support or uphold the rights, claims, or arguments put forward by the original party.