This rule does not apply to interests in the grantor itself. For example, the permit “For A, as long as no alcohol is sold on the premises, then to B” would contravene the rule to B. However, the transport to B would be cancelled and “would remain after A as long as no alcohol is sold locally”. This would create an easily determinable tax in A, with the possibility of going back on the grantor (or heirs). The subsidy to B would be null and void since it is possible that alcohol will be sold on site more than 21 years after the death of A, B and the licensor. However, since the rule does not apply to grantors, the possibility of reversal of the grantor (or its heirs) would apply. “Eighty Years of Fruitful Reign.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/fertile%20octogenarian%20rule. Retrieved 16. October 2022. The basic elements of the rule against eternity originated in England in the 17th century and were “crystallized” into a single rule in the 19th century. [1] The classic formulation of the rule was given in 1886 by the American jurist John Chipman Gray: On this page you will find the legal definition and meaning of Fertile Octogenarian, written in simple English, as well as examples of how it is used. The courts may limit the periods of usufruct.
For example, if a company builds a ski slope and assigns rights of use (usufruct) as a gift to business partners, these cannot last forever, but must end after a certain period of time, for example 10 years. An eternal usufruct is therefore forbidden and “indefinite” can mean a long but finite period, for example 99 years. Here, the usufruct differs on the one hand that can be held permanently. In order to fulfill the rule against eternity, the class of persons must be limited and determinable. [29] One cannot therefore say in a document “until the last of the peoples living in the world dies, plus 21 years”. To avoid problems caused by poorly formulated legal instruments, practitioners in some countries almost universally include a “safeguard clause” as a form of disclaimer. This standard clause is commonly referred to as the “Kennedy clause” or “Rockefeller clause” because the determinable “lives in being” are called the descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy (John F. Kennedy`s father) or John D.
Rockefeller. Both point to well-known families with many descendants and are therefore suitable for named and identifiable lives. For a time it was popular to use a royal life clause and let the term a charter run until the last of the descendants of (for example) Queen Victoria, who is now alive, dies over 21 years. [ref. needed] To define a legal term, enter a word or phrase below. 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 fault for a lawyer 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] The rule prohibiting eternity is closely related to another common law doctrine of property, namely the rule prohibiting 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 of eternity is also a violation of the principle prohibiting unreasonable restrictions on alienation, reciprocity is not true. [5] As has been stated, “the rule against eternity is an ancient but still vital rule of property law that aims to improve the negotiability of property interests by limiting the distance of acquisition.” [6] For this reason, another court stated that the provisions of the rule are based on “public policy” and therefore constitute “statutory prohibitions that cannot be waived.” [7] The rule never applies to conditions imposed on 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 otherwise to the World Wildlife Fund” would be valid under the rule because both parties are charities. Even if the interest on the fund is not earned for hundreds of years, the transfer would still be valid. However, the exception does not apply if the transfer is not made from one charity to another if the condition is breached. Thus, an invention “to John Smith as long as no one operates a liquor store on the premises, but if anyone operates a liquor store on the premises, it is to the Roman Catholic Church” would violate the rule. The exception would not apply to the transfer of John Smith to the Roman Catholic Church, since John Smith is not a charity. If the original transfer was “to John Smith and his heirs as long as John Smith or his heirs do not use the premises to sell liquor, 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 shares to be transferred. and therefore their interest is null and void. Thus, John remains with an easily determinable tax and constituting it a possibility of reversal. [clarification needed] Real estate developer Henry G. Freeman founded Henry G. Freeman Jr.
Pin Money Fund, which was to provide the First Lady of the United States with a pension of $12,000 per year. Freeman died in 1917, but none of the president`s spouses received payments from the fund until Freeman`s then-living descendants died out in 1989. Although Freeman`s will stated that payments “should remain in effect as long as this glorious government continued,” the trustees of the Fund decided that maintaining the trust for more than 21 years after 1989 would violate the rule of eternity and terminated the trust by agreement with the then first lady. Michelle Obama, in 2010. donate the fund to charity instead. As a result, only four First Ladies received payments from the fund. The rule against eternity is a rule of law in Anglo-American common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or will) to exercise control over private property for a time well beyond the lives of living persons at the time the act was written. In particular, the rule prohibits a person from creating future interests (traditionally conditional remainder and performance interest) of property that would be transferred more than 21 years after the life of those who lived at the time the interest arose, often expressed as “life being plus twenty-one years”. Essentially, the rule prevents a person from including qualifications and criteria in a deed or will that would continue to affect property long after their death, a concept often referred to as “dead hand” or “mortgage” control. The rule also applies to real estate acquisition options. Often, one of the purposes of deferring the acquisition is to avoid or reduce taxes of some kind. For example, a bequest in a will may be addressed to grandchildren, often with a lifetime interest in the surviving spouse and then children, in order to avoid paying multiple death taxes or inheritance tax on the testator`s estate.
The rule of eternity has been one of the means developed to at least limit this tax avoidance strategy. Many jurisdictions have laws that completely repeal the rule or clarify the period of time and who is involved: The rule against eternity serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-term contingencies to their property affects the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell property, as few people would be willing to buy properties that had unresolved problems with their property. Second, judges often feared that the dead would unduly restrict the possession and use of property by those who were still alive. For this reason, the rule only allows testators (testamentaries) to transfer contingencies to the next generation plus 21-year-old property. After all, the rule against eternity was sometimes used to prevent very large, perhaps aristocratic, estates from being held in a family for more than one or two generations. [1]. Black`s Law Dictionary defines the rule against eternity as “the common law rule that prohibits the grant of an estate unless the interest is to be transferred, if any, no later than 21 years (plus a gestation period to cover a posthumous birth) after the death of a person who was alive at the time of the creation of the interest.” [8] The rule against eternity is an important plot point in the 1981 film Body Heat. He also played a subplot in the 2011 film The Descendants. In 1919, Baron Wellington R. died. He and Burt left a will stipulating that his estate, with the exception of small allowances, would not be distributed until 21 years after the death of the last of his grandchildren, born during his lifetime.