Rule against perpetuities Articles from SEXGRINDER.COM Free Article Directory

Search our Site:

The rule against perpetuities is a rule in property law which prohibits a contingent grant or will from vesting outside a certain period. If there is a possibility of the estate vesting outside of the period, regardless of how remote that chance may be, the whole interest is void, and is stricken from a grant. The rule is concerned with the utility of property and tries to prevent people from tying up assets for too long a period of time—a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain." That is, the purpose is to "limit the testator's power to earmark gifts for remote descendants."^[1] The rule was enacted to prevent the concentration of wealth in society. When a part of a grant or will violates the Rule, only that portion of the grant or devise is removed; all other parts that do not violate the Rule are still valid conveyances of property.

Although most discussions and analysis relating to rule revolve around wills and trusts, the rule applies to any future dispositions of property, including (for example) options.

The Rule against Perpetuities has its origin in the Duke of Norfolk's Case of 1682.^[2] That case concerned Henry, Earl of Arundel (later the Duke of Norfolk), who had tried to create a shifting executory limitation so that one of his titles would pass to his eldest son (who was mentally deficient) and then to his second son, and another title would pass to his second son, but then to his fourth son. The estate plan also included provisions for shifting the titles many generations later, if certain conditions should occur.

When his second son, Henry, succeeded to one title, he did not want to pass the other to his younger brother, Charles. Charles sued to enforce his interest, and the court (in this instance the House of Lords) held that such a shifting condition could not exist indefinitely. The judges believed that tying up property too long beyond the lives of people living at the time was wrong, although the exact period was not determined until another case, Cadell v. Palmer, 150 years later.^[3]

Rule against perpetuities Subcategories Rule against perpetuities Articles