Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
17. In such action, the court should find that title is now in
The developer brought an appropriate action to quiet title against the son, the friend, and the church, and joined the appropriate state official. Such official asserted that a charitable trust was created which has not terminated.
The church never constructed a church building on Blackacre and last month the church, for valid consideration, conveyed Blackacre to a developer.
A testator owned Blackacre, a vacant one-acre tract of land. Five years ago, he executed a deed conveying Blackacre to «the church for the purpose of erecting a church building thereon.» Three years ago, the testator died leaving his son as his sole heir at law. His duly probated will left «all my estate, both real and personal, to my friend.»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent is created when the words of a grant support the conclusion that the grantor intends to convey a fee simple absolute but has attached a condition to the grant so that if a specified future event happens the grantor will get its fee simple absolute back, provided that the grantor exercises his right of entry (or power of termination). Thus, a fee simple subject to condition subsequent does not end automatically upon the happening of the condition. The future interest is called a «right of reentry» or «right of entry,» and the property only reverts to the original grantor if he exercises this right.
When a grantor creates a fee simple determinable or a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, there is no natural end to the estate. Either the estate continues indefinitely (if the condition imposed never occurs) or the estate is interrupted upon the happening of the event.
A is correct. Pay close attention to the language used in the conveyance to the church. The testator's language did not create a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent (through the use of «but if» or «upon condition that») or a fee simple determinable (through the use of «while,» «during,» or «until»). Instead, the testator used the language «for the purpose of,» which has no effect on the title, so the church held fee simple absolute. Therefore, after the church transferred title to the developer, the developer held in fee simple.
B is incorrect. The son receives no title to Blackacre because the church held it in fee simple absolute and validly conveyed it to the developer, but also because the testator specified all his real and personal property should go to his friend.
C is incorrect. If Blackacre had been conveyed with some form of limitation that would revert possession back to the grantor if a condition was not met, then the friend would gain title to Blackacre. However, the property was given with no restrictions, in fee simple absolute to the church, which validly conveyed it to a developer.
D is incorrect. The state official receives no title to Blackacre because title belongs to the developer. Moreover, the property never escheated to the state because the testator had a valid will.