Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

destructibility of contingent remainders

Read a random definition: voidable preference

A quick definition of destructibility of contingent remainders:

Destructibility of Contingent Remainders: A rule in common law that says a future interest must become possessory or it will be destroyed and go back to the person who granted it. This rule can be avoided by using trustees to protect the future interest. Most American jurisdictions have abolished this rule, but a few states still follow it.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Destructibility of contingent remainders is a legal doctrine that requires a future interest to vest by the time it is supposed to become possessory, or else it will be destroyed, and the interest will revert to the grantor. This doctrine can be avoided by using trustees to preserve contingent remainders. However, this doctrine has been abolished in most American jurisdictions, and the abolishing statutes are commonly known as anti-destructibility statutes.

Example: Suppose a landowner grants a piece of land to A for life, then to B's children if B has any, and if not, to C. If B does not have any children, then the contingent remainder in favor of B's children will be destroyed, and the interest will revert to the grantor. However, if the landowner had used a trustee to preserve the contingent remainder, then the trustee could hold the interest until it vests.

Explanation: This example illustrates how the destructibility of contingent remainders works. If the future interest does not vest by the time it is supposed to become possessory, then it will be destroyed, and the interest will revert to the grantor. However, using a trustee to preserve the interest can avoid this result.

destructibility | destruction

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.