Download Magazine - Levin College of Law - University of Florida

The next night it was Property. The professor was
explaining the Rule Against Perpetuities. You have to
respect the Rule Against Perpetuities. For one thing,
no other legal rule has doctrines that sound like old
blues tunes. The “Bad as to One, Bad as to All” and
“Unborn Widow” rules could have been classic hits
for Muddy Waters.
But the main reason to admire the Rule Against Perpetuities
is that it has managed to remain a quintessential
law school rule even though it is hardly ever used and
even less often understood. Studies show that almost
all lawyers know about the Rule Against Perpetuities
is that, for reasons never fully developed, “21
years” is important to property law.
In the dream—nightmare, as it
turned out—I was in Property class
scribbling furiously to keep up with
the professorʼs illumination of the
rule. Hereʼs a side-by-side match-up
of what the professor said and what I
wrote down in my notes:
Prof: No contingent future
interest in a transferee is good
unless it must vest or fail to
vest within 21 years of the death of some life in being at the
time of the creation of the interest.
My notes: No astringent foosball interest … must vest
OR FAIL TO VEST … 21 years … death … life in bean
… creation interest
Prof: The rationale for the rule is straightforward. Itʼs designed
to limit efforts by grantors to restrict the free alienation
of property by burdening it with contingent future interests.
My notes: Rationale for rule straightforward—designed
to limit grantees ORS . . . something, something, something—SLOW
THE **** DOWN!—Alien Nation of Property
… BUY GILBERTʼS!!!
Prof: The simple way to understand the rule is to remember
that it all has to do with the vesting or failure to
vest of a contingent future interest within the lifetime of a
measuring life or 21 years after that personʼs death.
My notes: Simple way to understand rule is to remember
that it has to do with … 21 YEARS, 21 YEARS, 21
YEARS …
My Civil Procedure dream was the most alarming.
Our professor spent a long time talking about Pennoyer
v. Neff, but I never understood it. The more he
talked, the more confusing everything became. Mostly
what I remembered about Pennoyer v. Neff was the name.
S U M M E R 2 0 0 7 43