Speaking of hell, the Rule Against Perpetuities...
Way back in the day, King Arthur got pissed off at his knights for writing wills that dictated who would get their seat at the round table after their deaths for hundreds and hundreds of years. Arthur wasn't much for blind dates, so he decided to create the Rule Against Perpetuities. Merlin foretold that every law student would curse his name for all eternity, but the idea of being forced to dine with girls with masters degrees in the Kardashians was sufficient motivation to ignore the warning.
The Rule Against Perpetuities reads something like this:
No transfer of an interest in land is valid unless that interest must vest, if at all, within 21 years of the end of a life in being at the time of the transfer.Translated into English, it effectively means that if you try to control who owns your property, and it is POSSIBLE that by your efforts someone could potentially come into a right to the property more than 21 years after everyone you know is dead, your efforts are legally invalid. As Arthur intended, the rule prevents inordinate "dead hand" control over land. He may not have intended the other consequences, however.
If you know a law student, chances are he has a knee-jerk reaction to the words "fertile octogenarian" that includes murderous impulses. Reactions to "unborn widow" tend to be equally vehement. (As an aside, ponder the nature of "unborn widows" for a moment...) Consider the following:
The Fertile Octogenarian
Irene Ihatemylife's husband dies, leaving a will describing how he would like his property in Hell, CA to be disposed of. He instructs that the property is to be given to his 89-year-old wife, Irene, for the duration of her life, and upon her death to the first of her children to reach the age of 25. In so many words, Irene is screwed.
Now imagine the possibilities for a moment if 89-year-old Irene has a child. Sadly, immediately after the birth all of Irene's other children are murdered by invading alien hoards. Overcome with grief, Irene herself expires, leaving her generational-gap-suffering infant behind, ostensibly to inherit her property in Hell when he turns 25. However, Irene and all of her other children--the "lives in being" when the will was created--have all just died. It will take the child more than 21 years to turn 25 and vest his right to the property, thus violating the Rule Against Perpetuities. So because this ridiculous scenario is POSSIBLE (even though it is unlikely), Irene's husband's will is invalid and Irene does not inherit land in Hell.
The Unborn Widow
Danny Damnit decides to will his property to his son Dangit for the duration of his life, and upon Dangit's death to his widow, and thereafter to their descendants. Danny then dies, and Dangit wants to inherit the property. No dice, Dangit.
Suppose the day after Danny died, Little Debbie was born. Although she is just an infant, Dangit is immediately enamored and arranges their marriage. 17 years and 364 days later on Little Debbie's 18th birthday they are wed. Sadly, Dangit is (a legal illustration and thus) weakly constituted, and his overjoyed heart literally bursts at the reception, killing him instantly. Little Debbie then joins the Russian Cosmonauts and departs on a manned mission around the sun that takes precisely 21 years and one day. It goes well, but problems arise upon reentry and Little Debbie is incinerated. Now her childrens' right to the property vests per Danny's original will...but this happens more than 21 years after Dangit (the last life in being when Danny's will was made) died. Rule Against Perpetuities violated = Will Invalid. Sorry kids.
The Precocious Toddler
Finally, consider the case of Fanny Fertile. She leaves her property to her sister for life, and thereafter to her sister's grandchildren who are then living or are born within five years of her death that reach the age of 25. Once again, this transfer is foiled by ridiculousness.
It is possible that the day after receiving Fanny's property, her 70-year-old sister has a baby. Owing to a rare sliver of logic, complications due to late-life pregnancy purchase Fanny's sister a ticket for her last train ride. Unfazed by her late mother's passing, however, and perhaps ruined by her lack of a strong female role model, the infant quickly becomes the trollop of the nursery. Before she is even healthy enough to leave the hospital, she has been knocked up by the stud from the crib across the aisle (this is possible, I assure you...trust me, I'm a doctor). Similar to its mother, the infant passes away during childbirth due to complications of babies having babies. When the baby's baby is born (within five years fo Fanny's death), it will have the potential to vest its rights to Fanny's property by turning 25. However, this too will occur more than 21 years after the deaths of the lives in being, and Fanny's will is invalid.
Now the rub:
In 1961, a San Francisco lawyer named Hamm was sued for malpractice. The gist of the case was that he had written a will for one of his clients. In writing the will, however, Hamm glazed over a few technicalities and violated the Rule Against Perpetuities, causing some of the will's intended beneficiaries to be disinherited. Obviously upset, the disinherited beneficiaries filed suit against Hamm.
Despite Hamm's obvious fault, the case went all the way to California's Supreme Court. In one of the most brilliant pieces of lawyering I've ever heard of, Hamm's attorney's articulated an elegant argument. In adjudicating a malpractice action, a court can only find a lawyer liable if he acts in a manner inconsistent with the way a reasonable lawyer would act in a similar situation. Hamm's attorney's argued --and the Supreme Court held--simply that no reasonable lawyer understands the Rule Against Perpetuities! So although Hamm was at fault for writing the will that disinherited the plaintiffs, the rule the will violated was so complicated that he was excused from liability.
Slow clap here. King Arthur, or whatever dope is responsible for the Rule Against Perpetuities, as well as every imbecile who continues to enforce it, has created a monster that even those who have studied it cannot comprehend. This monster perpetually terrorizes colonies of law students and occasionally makes off with an inheritance or other interest in land...well done, ladies and gentlemen.
No comments:
Post a Comment