Remaining Schedule

• Have a Donut

• Class: Monday 8:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m.

• Office Hours– Saturday 11-2 (Room 263)– Sunday 2-4:30 (Room 263)– Monday 6:30-9 (Deans’ Suite)

(N): Clark “to Jimmy for life, then to Lois and her heirs, but if Jimmy is survived at his death by any children, then to such

surviving children and their heirs.

Jimmy has children, Perry & Della.

Jimmy?

(N): Clark “to Jimmy for life, then to Lois and her heirs, but if Jimmy is survived at his death by any children, then to such

surviving children and their heirs.

Jimmy has children, Perry & Della.

Jimmy: Life Estate

Lois?

(N): Clark “to Jimmy for life, then to Lois and her heirs, but if Jimmy is survived at his death by any children, then to such

surviving children and their heirs.

Jimmy has children, Perry & Della.

Jimmy: Life Estate

Lois: Vested remainder (in f.s.) subj. to divestment

Perry/Della?

(N): Clark “to Jimmy for life, then to Lois and her heirs, but if Jimmy is survived at his death by any children, then to such

surviving children and their heirs.

Jimmy has children, Perry & Della.

Jimmy: Life Estate

Lois: Vested remainder (in f.s.) subj. to divestment

Perry/Della: Shifting executory interest (in f.s.)

Clark?

(N): Clark “to Jimmy for life, then to Lois and her heirs, but if Jimmy is survived at his death by any children, then to such

surviving children and their heirs.

Jimmy has children, Perry & Della.

Jimmy: Life Estate

Lois: Vested remainder (in f.s.) subj. to divestment

Perry/Della: Shifting executory interest (in f.s.)

Clark? Nothing

(L) (M) (N) TRYING TO DO SAME THINGS:

(1) To A for life(2) If A has any surviving children,

they should take(3) If no surviving children, to B

BUT 3 DIFFERENT SETS OF INTERESTS CREATED

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS

Conditions So Abhorrent …

You Can’t Even Impose Them

on Your Own Children

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS

• Doing Criminal Acts

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS

• Doing Criminal Acts• Total Restraint on Alienation

– Partial Restraint OK if Reasonable

– Most Restrictions Restrain Alienation Some

– Use Restrictions (Only by X?)• OK if Charitable• Some jurisd: Non-Charitable = on Alienation

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS

• Doing Criminal Acts

• Total Restraint on Alienation

• Total Restraint on Marriage– Some Jurisd: Maybe OK if Life Estate

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS

• Doing Criminal Acts

• Total Restraint on Alienation

• Total Restraint on Marriage

• Obtaining Divorce

UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS• Doing Criminal Acts• Total Restraint on Alienation• Total Restraint on Marriage• Obtaining Divorce

• Race-Based Limitations (Unenforceable)– Sex-Based Upheld w/in Family– Religion: (Discuss w Shapira)

(PROB O)(RANGE)Archie in will: “To my wife

Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

Residue to daughter Gloria. Edith moves in with male friend,

Sherman. Edith subsequently dies, devising her property to Sherman.

(O): 3 QUESTIONS

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?

(O) 3 QUESTIONS

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?

• Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy?

(O): 3 QUESTIONS

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?

• Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy?

• Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?

(O): 1st QUESTION:ARGUMENTS?

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?

(O): 1st QUESTION

“To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.” Life estate determinable or fee simple determinable?

• Presumption of Fee Simple

• Use and Benefit Sounds Like Life Estate

• Condition is Consistent with Intent to Support

(O): 1st QUESTION

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G =

(O): 1st QUESTION

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter

(O): 1st QUESTION

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter

• Some: E = Life Estate Determinable A G =

(O): 1st QUESTION

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter

• Some: E = Life Estate Determinable A G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger)

(O): 2d QUESTION:ARGUMENTS?

• Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy?

(O): 2d QUESTION

• Is condition restraining second marriage void as against public policy? Result:– If not, nothing changes

– If so, pencil out condition

(O): 2d QUESTION

• If condition void, pencil out condition

– “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

(O): 2d QUESTION

• If condition void, pencil out condition– “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit.”

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute• Some: E = Life Estate A G =

Reversion

(O): 2d QUESTION

• If condition void, pencil out condition– “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit.”

– Edith Dies?

• Majority: E = Fee Simple Absolute– S= Fee Simple Absolute

• Some: E = Life Estate A G = Reversion– G = Fee Simple Absolute

(O): 3d QUESTION:ARGUMENTS?

• Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?

(O): 3d QUESTION

• Is cohabitation a violation of a restraint on marriage?

– If yes, Gloria gets fee simple absolute.– If no (Restatement position) nothing changes

(O): Final Point: E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

– Some: E = Life Estate Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger)

– Who Gets?

(O): Final Point: E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

– Some: E = Life Estate Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter +Reversion = Reversion (Merger)

• G = Fee Simple Absolute

(O): Final Point: E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

– Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter

– Who Gets?

(O): Final Point: E Dies, Condition Valid, No Violation

• “To my wife Edith, for her use & benefit, so long as she remains unmarried.”

– Majority: E = Fee Simple Determinable G = Possibility of Reverter

– S = Fee Simple Absolute (Condition Can Never Occur)

Shapira v. Union National Bank

(FEATURING AN ENCORE

PERFORMANCE BY YELLOW)YELLOW)

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Gift conditioned upon religious faith of beneficiary v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith

– Belief v. Conduct (Marriage in 1974)

– Administrability

ADMINISTRABILITYADMINISTRABILITY• To Pigpen, so long as the kitchens and

bathrooms are always kept very clean.

• To Schroeder, so long as he never plays any work by Beethoven on the piano.

ADMINISTRABILITYADMINISTRABILITY• To Lucy so long as she remains a member

of the Society of Friends

• To Linus, so long as he remains a good Catholic

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Gift conditioned upon divorce v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Gift conditioned upon divorce v. Gift conditioned upon marriage to person of particular faith– Ct: Latter not sufficient to encourage fake M & divorce– Grantee can’t avoid condition by saying “I will act in bad

faith”

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party v. Conditional gift without “gift over”

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS

• Conditional gift with “gift over” to third party v. Conditional gift without “gift over”

Comprehensive plan v. “In Terrorem” condition

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS• Forcing a marriage as condition of completed gift

v. withholding gift until marriage made

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS• Forcing a marriage as condition of

completed gift v. withholding gift until marriage made– Remedy: Injunction v. Forfeiting Gift

– Like case involving divorce settlement requirement that child be raised in partic. faith: won’t impose contempt/crim sanctions for not following religion

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS• Quaker men (Maddox) v. Jewish women

(Shapira)

SHAPIRA: DISTINCTIONS• Quaker men (Maddox) v. Jewish women(Shapira)

– Too Few Available Partners (e.g., you must marry one of the Bronte Sisters)

DQ14. Was the Maddox opinion cited in Shapira correct to rule that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners?

DQ14. Was the Maddox opinion cited in Shapira correct to rule that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small

number of eligible” partners?

Too much restriction on grantee v.

Grantor’s rights

DQ14. Maddox rules that these kinds of conditions are unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.

How few partners must there be to meet the test?

DQ14. Maddox: unacceptable where there is a sufficiently “small number of eligible” partners.If you were living in a state with that test, how would you prove it was met?

DQ15: Should a court enforce conditions

that limit or mandate religious behavior for

the grantee?(ORANGE)

SPRING SCHEDULE

• Contracts DG (Widen)– TR2-3:50

• CrimPro BD (Stotzky)– M1:30-2:50; W2-3:20

• ConLawI AD (Barnes)– TRF8-9:20

• Elective

• Contracts BH (Fischl)– MW9-10:50

• CrimPro CH (Bascuas)– MW2-3:20

• ConLawI FH (Schnably)– TR4:35-5:55; F9:30-10:50

• Elective

1L ELECTIVE CHOICES

• Analysis of Evidence: Anderson/Twining

• Environmental: Williamson

• European Community: Bradley

• Law & Social Justice: Mahoney

• Legislation: Blatt

• Substantive Criminal Law: Coker

DON’T PANIC!!!

You’re Not Choosing a Spouse!

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

• Using Facts & Inferences to Prove Things

• Sometimes Offered for 2Ls & 3Ls

• Lot of Project Work (Teams) + Exam

• Meets Lit Skills Evidence Requirement

• Two Sections (Together & Separate)

• They Co-wrote the Book

• Meets Shorter Periods, but also on Fridays

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

• Always offered for Upper Level Students

• Says Final Exam Only (Midterm in Past)

• Mixed Class w Upper Level Students (Separate Curves)

• Not About Rabbits and Trees

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW

• Good Introduction to Int’l Topics

• Usually Not Offered to 2Ls/3Ls

• Final Exam Only

• Will Include Int’l Students

LAW & SOCIAL JUSTICE

• Not Offered for Upper Level Students

• Lot of Project Work (Groups) and Exam

• Much Info on How to Incorporate Public Interest Component into Practice

• Lot of Interesting Guest Speakers

• She co-wrote the Book

LEGISLATION

• Incredibly Useful Course

• Exam and Short Written Project

• Lot of Participation

• Not Offered for Upper Level Students

• Likely to be Smallest Class

SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW

• Always available for Upper Level Students

• My Opinion: Everyone Should Take in L.S.

• Final Exam & (Maybe) Short Writing Project(s) for Small % of Grade

• Likely to be Largest Class