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.
Duke of Norfolk's Case (1682) 3 Ch Cas 1; 22 ER 931 is an important legal judgment of the House of Lords that established the common law rule against perpetuities.The case related to establishing inheritance for grandchildren of Henry Howard, 22nd Earl of Arundel including grandchildren who were not yet born.
An attempt to create such an interest is construed as a fee simple subject to condition subsequent (see below), and a person who would have possibility of reverter at common law will instead have a right of entry. [1] A fee simple determinable does not violate the rule against perpetuities, since a possibility of reverter is not subject to the ...
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]
The rule against perpetuities forbids the creation of interests that might vest after the established time period. This graphic depicts the forbidden scenario. Created for Rule against perpetuities. Source Created using Inkscape. Previously published: N/A Date 2013-03-04 Author Ocsenave. Permission (Reusing this file) See below.
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:
The majority ruled against Los Angeles civil rights attorney Sandra Muñoz, who was last able to live with her Salvadoran husband nearly 10 years ago. The couple started the process of getting an ...
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.