X grants property to y, so long as y farms the property. Y has a fee simple determinable. X has retained a possibility of reverter. Why a possibility of reverter? Because Y might continue to farm the property, in which case x will never get the reverter. It's possible, but not definite.
X grants property to y, but if y does not farm the property, x will enter the property and reclaim it. Y has a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent. X has retained a right of re-entry.
X grants property to y for life. Y has a life estate. X has retained a reversion. Why a reversion? Because Y will not live forever, and unlike with a possibility of reverter, Y is certain to die. At some point x (or x' heirs) will get the reversion.
X grants property to y for life and then to z. Y has a life estate. Z has a remainder. X has nothing. Why does x have nothing? The life estate + the remainder = 100% of the property. There is nothing left for x.
X grants property to y, so long as y farms the property, but if y does not farm the property, then to z. Y has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Z has an executory interest. X has nothing. Once again 100% of the property has been granted.
X grants property to y, so long as y farms the property, but if y does not farm the property then to z for life. Y has a fee simple subject to an executory limitation. Z has an executory interest in life estate. X has retained a possibility of reverter. Z is sure to die, but x retains only a possibility of reverter, since y might continue indefinitely to farm the property. X's reversion is therefore not definite
No comments:
Post a Comment