Many jurisdictions have laws that either completely repeal the rule or clarify the period and persons involved: 38. Littler, 446 P.3d at 1066. “The relentless interpretation and infectious rule of disability has been followed by most courts that have recognized the rule against eternity. If it was possible that part of a device could be acquired beyond the authorized period, the entire device was deleted. “In re Estate of Freeman, 404 P.2d 222, 229 (Kan. 1965). However, the Kansas Supreme Court never granted England`s relentless construction request. Id. at 230. [Back to text] The rule against eternity is one of the most difficult topics facing law students.
[18] It is notoriously difficult to apply it correctly: in 1961, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was not a legal offense for an attorney to write a will that inadvertently violated the rule. [19] In the United States, the common law rule has been abolished by law in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,[20] Kentucky,[21] Rhode Island,[22] and South Dakota. [23] 4. Jason Oil Co.c. Littler, 446 pp.3d 1058, 1064 (Kan. 2019). « The distinction between acquired and conditional interests is of great importance for the rule against eternity, because a real self-interest is never odious to the rule, while a conditional interest can not only be, but often is. » McEwen v. Enoch, 204 p.2d 736, 739 (Kan. 1949). [Back to text] Under the common law, the period was set at 21 years after the death of an identifiable person who was alive at the time the interest was created. This is often expressed as “living in the being plus twenty-one years”.
Under the common law rule, the question is not whether an interest is actually transferred more than 21 years after life in the making. If, at the time of grant, there is a possibility, however unlikely or distant, that interest will expire outside the period of eternity, the interest is null and void and is withdrawn from the grant. The rule against eternity is closely related to another common law doctrine of property, the rule against unreasonable restrictions on alienation. Both are based on an underlying principle or common law reference that disapproves of restrictions on property rights. [4] However, while a violation of the rule against eternity is also a violation of the rule against unreasonable restrictions on alienation, reciprocity is not true. [5] As one noted, “the rule against eternity is an ancient but still vital rule of property law designed to improve the marketability of property interests by limiting the remoteness of acquisition.” [6] For this reason, another court stated that the provisions of the rule are based on “public policy” and therefore constitute “non-dispensable legal prohibitions. [7] The purpose of the rule is to prevent a person from drafting any type of delegation agreement that could control the fate of the country he abandons fifty, sixty or a hundred or two hundred years after his death. Essentially, the law is intended to prevent dynastic property, the transmission of which is limited by the desires of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years. Of course, this sentence is loaded with complex and often hidden meanings that make full understanding of the rule tedious for most law students and lawyers. The rule against eternity is a prohibition on creating an interest that becomes vested in one or more beneficiaries whose identity cannot be established within 21 years of the death of the grantor of that interest (i.e., becomes an absolute present or future right to something that does not depend on an event).1 The main idea behind the rule is to: prevent a person from owning property for an unreasonably long period of time after death. The rule never applies to the conditions established for a transfer to a charity that, if violated, would transfer ownership to another charity. For example, a transfer “to the Red Cross as long as it operates an office on the property, but if it does not, then to the World Wildlife Fund” would be valid under the rule, since both parties are charities.
Even if the interest in the fund cannot be acquired for hundreds of years, the transfer would still be considered valid. However, the exception does not apply if the transfer is not made from one charity to another charity in the event of a breach of the condition. For example, a device “to John Smith, as long as no one runs a liquor store on the premises, but if someone runs a liquor store on the premises, then to the Roman Catholic Church” would violate the rule. The exception would not apply to john Smith`s transfer to the Roman Catholic Church because John Smith is not a charity. Even if the initial transfer was “to John Smith and his heirs as long as John Smith or his heirs do not use the premises to sell alcohol, but if he does, then to the Red Cross,” this would violate the rule, as it could take more than 21 years for red Cross participation to be transferred, and therefore their interest is null and void. Thus, John remains easy to determine with a royalty and constituting it a possibility of reverting. [Clarification required] Other jurisdictions apply the Cy près doctrine, which validates possible remains and law enforcement interests. In certain circumstances, the traditional rule would have regarded those remnants and interests as null and void. [23] Perpetuity Rule: A rule that certain future interests, if any, must be transferred within 21 years of the death of a life at the time the interests are formed. The rule against eternity plays an important role in the 1981 film Body Heat.
He also played a supporting role in the 2011 film The Descendants. Black`s Law Dictionary defines the rule against eternity as “[t]he common law rule that prohibits the granting of an estate unless the interest must be acquired, if any, no later than 21 years (plus a period of pregnancy to cover a posthumous birth) after the death of a person who was alive in the creation of the interest.” [8] The rule applies to performance interest and possible residues […].