LIFE ESTATES UPDATE - Posted by Jack-E

Posted by Jimmy on June 12, 2009 at 10:37:57:

The Rule Against Perpetuities differs from state to state. and some states don’t have this ban anymore.

some states make it simple by requiring that property come out of trust (or out of the life estate/contingent remainder chasm) within 90 years.

others have a formulation based on “lives in being” plus 21 years. so you can transfer a property into one of these arrangements for a period of time measured by “life in being” plus 21 more years, plus a 40 week gestation period. a life in being is a person who is alive at the time of the transfer.

this is way too complicated to really describe here. which life is the measuring life? and weird legal gremlins can screw up an otherwise permissible arrangement----unborn widows and fertile octogenarians area couple legal creations used to kill these things.

LIFE ESTATES UPDATE - Posted by Jack-E

Posted by Jack-E on June 06, 2009 at 17:38:39:

This is an update on the legality of sucessive life estates in the same document that I have posted before and Rick the Probate Guy has give so much good advice. I have contacted a Oklahoma Lawyer as to the legality in that state and expect an update momentarily It would appear so far that it is doubtful

TE - Posted by Nike

Posted by Nike on June 08, 2009 at 05:59:10:

Do you understand what a life estate is? Let’s say you own a home that your married brother lives in. You want your brother and his wife to be able to remain in the home but you eventually want your grandson to have the property. You may create a deed providing as follows: x to son for life then son’s wife for life then to grandson and his heirs. One document with successive life estates.

In the future it would help if you provided the language from the deed/will.

Re: TE- Obtuse Personified - Posted by JACK-e

Posted by JACK-e on June 11, 2009 at 16:48:19:

Dear NIke. Yes, I understand what a LE is. It does not take an intellect as sharp as yours to understand this. What you are describing is not what I am asking and I think I have explained it well, but for some reason you do not want to hear it. Language: Property (Land)is given in a Life estate to the oldest son who dies without heirs. Will provides in same document that in this case land goes to second son in LE and then to his heirs. Is that legal? Can I make it plainer than that? Why are you making it so hard to get thru to you?

Non lawyer’s simplistic answer - Posted by blogger

Posted by blogger on June 08, 2009 at 09:18:21:

In the future it would help if non-lawyers stayed off Legal Forum instead.

Obtuse Personified - Posted by Nike

Posted by Nike on June 12, 2009 at 15:39:16:

Obtuse?–now you’re being ironic, right?. You have been raising this same issue for months and you’re as confused today as you were four months ago. What a waste of time.

Re: Non lawyer’s simplistic answer - Posted by Rick, the Probate Guy

Posted by Rick, the Probate Guy on June 08, 2009 at 10:03:28:

You may be right, but then again, how many valid reply posts would posters see here?

For one, I have not seen a single post by either of the forum moderators in many, many months. So, unless this were to change, this would leave responses to other (attorney?) posters.

Given the small handful of attorney posters (Jimmy and John Merchant come to mind) that would leave the burden on their shoulders and I doubt that they would be so thrilled at the prospect. Few other attorneys seem to ever chime in.

On the other hand, there are some very experienced, if not highly qualified, laymen posters. A few, like my friend Ward Hanigan, did finish law school, but may never have sat for the bar exam or admitted to their State Bar. If they don’t practice law, are they a lawyer? Probably. Should they give legal advise?

That leaves the experienced laymen types. While I may not agree with all of their posts, logic or legal citings, many of their posts do get me thinking about other ways to solve problems.

Kristine has an excellent legal mind uncorrupted by lawschool.

Jimmy’s mind has been corrupted by lawschool and the CA legal system, and his posts are absolutely priceless in my opinion.

Nike, too, appears to have a great deal of experience with legal matters; practical, I would suspect.

I’m definately a non-attorney type, however most of what I do all day long is sort out attorney messes and help attorneys with their clients’ matters. I’m clearly compensated much greater than they are, too.

So, do you want the board admin to screen and purge non-attorneys’ posts?

I’d much rather have Nike or someone poke me in the side once and a while and keep me on my toes. Also, I learn so much more. As for the moderators, I haven’t learned a thing from their participation.

Re: Obtuse Personified- Clarity - Posted by Jack-E

Posted by Jack-E on June 12, 2009 at 18:51:50:

If anyone here is confused it is you. All I want is a simple answer. However, you do not seem to be able to give one. Just B. S.

Re: Non lawyer’s simplistic answer -Maybe - Posted by JACK-e

Posted by JACK-e on June 11, 2009 at 16:57:58:

Rick. Your urgings must have awaken “Rip Van Winkle” I see he is now posting again. I am chastized that you did not include me in your favorite posters.

Priceless, huh? - Posted by Jimmy

Posted by Jimmy on June 10, 2009 at 08:24:38:

Maybe my comments should be priceFUL. I need more cash. hmmm. how do I get paid for sharing my wisdom here?

as for life estates…let me repeat…

yes, they are very rare today, as the legal profession embraced trust arrangements many decades ago. trusts are far more flexible and customizable, and a lot easier to understand.

yes, they are legal, so long as they do not violate the rule against perpetuities or some other public policy. (e.g., you can’t give a LE to your son, and then to a succession of unborn descendants. almost every state banned perpetuities a long time ago----although a few have changed their minds—like Alaska.) (e.g., you can’t leave a life estate to someone, but have it terminate if the person marries a Jew or a Catholic, etc. these violate public policy, although they were perfectly acceptable a long time ago.

here’s a strange example of one such contractual provision I saw a few years ago. My grandfather died in 1960, and was laid to rest in a cemetery in Beckley, West Virginia. My grandmother bought a double-plot, presumably for her remains. 41 years later, she died at the age of 91. and she still had the paperwork from when she bought the burial plot. I was astonished to see that the document prohibited “Negroes” and “persons of the Jewish faith” to be buried in this cemetery. well…these provisions would be unenforceable today.

WELL… - Posted by Wayne-NC

Posted by Wayne-NC on September 07, 2009 at 14:44:54:

…At least he’s consistant! I have noticed that from him/her over a relatively long time.

Re: Priceless, huh? - Posted by JACK-e

Posted by JACK-e on June 11, 2009 at 16:31:00:

Jimmy. You state you cannot give an LE to your son and then to a succession of unborn descendants. Can you give it to your son and then a sucessive son and un born descentants?