Please enjoy this excerpt from an email from my Property professor to better understand why this class drives me to tears. This has not been edited by me in any way, shape, or form:
Shelley ought not to apply as "lawful" seems to exclude from heirs bastard kids of a female ancestor, but the cases ignored this, so Shelly could mean Al got a fee. If Shelkley does apply and Al got a fee, under the indefintie fialure oif issue interperetaitono(great mioritynw), it is a fee tail. Maj: it is a fee subject to condition a fee subject to exec itnereset Worhteri Title preusption is not an issue unless a remnaidner is involved. If Shelley does not apply, there is a remainder "Reverter" actually sweems tos trentghten the case for WT, as if O wanted his heirs to take as porucahserws he would not have used the term, associaredwith aretaiend inerest by him. So WT does apoply and O has a reversion If Shelleydoes not apply, Al got lfie estate, his heirs got a cont rem (msurt suirvive Al and be clsoesat relaive) reversions are alienablew by will, so if O hadone it went to Sue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don't worry, the answer to this question is clearly "ten healthy babies."
ReplyDeleteIs your professor writing to you from an internet cafe while backpacking through Europe?
ReplyDeleteThis is actually the way most of the information we get from him looks. I'm fairly certain he sits down at his keyboard and just slams his hands down a few times, and whatever comes up is the right answer. In accordance, that's how I plan to draft my answers to his final.
ReplyDelete....i gave up 3 sentences in.
ReplyDelete