The "Charming Head" of the Rule Against Perpetuities

Id. cmt. b (emphasis added). [...]the Restatement section 395(a) exemption applies only if the purchase option must be exercised, if at all, during the term of the lease. The Court of Appeals did not point out that this exception has been generally limited to situations where the option is exercisab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Probate and Property 2018-07, Vol.32 (4), p.30-33
Main Authors: Fishman, David H, Levin, Edward J
Format: Magazinearticle
Language:English
Subjects:
Commercial leases
Common law
Leases
Legal arguments
Options (Law)
Powers of appointment
Probate
Purchase options
Real estate financing
Rule against perpetuities
State court decisions
Trials
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Id. cmt. b (emphasis added). [...]the Restatement section 395(a) exemption applies only if the purchase option must be exercised, if at all, during the term of the lease. The Court of Appeals did not point out that this exception has been generally limited to situations where the option is exercisable only during the term of the lease, as is clearly set forth in Restatement section 395(a) and its comments. [...]the landlord faced the challenge of convincing the trial court that the language used by the Court of Appeals was incomplete and was provided for purposes of illustration only. After the parties filed briefs with the appellate court, they reached a settlement. [...]there will not be an appellate decision in this case. The comment to section 4 explains that exempting nondonative nonvested interests and powers of appointment from coverage under USRAP is contrary to common law and inconsistent with a number of state court decisions but justifies the change by noting that the Rule Against Perpetuities is a "wholly inappropriate" instrument of social policy to use in relation to nondonative transfers.
ISSN:0164-0372
2163-0135