Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (c. 18) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that reforms the rule against perpetuities. The Act resulted from a Law Commission report published in 1998. [3] It abolishes the rule against perpetuities in most non-trust contexts, such as easements. [3]
The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. [1]: 181 It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case [1]: 182 [2] but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), [3] in which counsel stated the rule as follows:
[2] However, in the United Kingdom, the significance of the royal lives clause may have diminished as a result of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, a legal act that reformed the rules against perpetuities in the country. [1] Similar reforms were also made in several Australian states and the Canadian province of British Columbia. [2]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The reforms introduced a statutory limitation on how long income could be accumulated before it must be distributed. In 2009, many of the Act's principles were further reformed by the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009, which introduced a single, simplified perpetuity period of 125 years, replacing the earlier rules. [1]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a ...