ANSWERS TO SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS

19.  Fee simple in B. By the doctrine of “merger,” whenever successive vested estates are owned by the same person, the smaller of the two estates is absorbed by the larger. When A conveyed his life estate to B, B then had two successive vested estates (the life estate and the previously-received vested remainder in fee simple). Consequently, the smaller estate (A’s life estate) was merged into the fee simple, and disappeared. Then, by the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders (see prior question), the destruction-by-merger of A’s life estate caused D’s contingent remainder dependent upon it to also be destroyed, since that contingent remainder did not vest at or before the termination of the preceding freehold estates.

20.  Fee simple absolute in B. Under the Rule in Shelley’s Case, if a will or conveyance creates a freehold in A, and purports to create a remainder in A’s heirs, and the estates are both legal or both equitable, the remainder becomes a fee simple in A. Thus by operation of the Rule, A received both a life estate and a remainder in fee simple. Then, by the doctrine of merger, A’s life estate merged into his remainder in fee simple, and A simply held a present fee simple. A’s quitclaim deed to B transferred this fee simple to B. A had nothing left at the time of his death, therefore, so S took nothing.

21.  Fee simple absolute in B. The Doctrine of Worthier Title provides that if the owner of a fee simple attempts to create a life estate (or fee tail estate), followed by a remainder to his own heirs, the remainder is void. The grantor thus keeps a reversion. So after the initial conveyance by O, A had a life estate and O had a reversion (with the remainder to O’s heirs being void). Therefore, O’s quitclaim deed to B was effective to pass O’s reversion to B. Once A died, the reversion held by B became a possessory fee simple absolute. Since the initial remainder to O’s heirs never took effect, S (O’s heir) took nothing.

22.  Fee simple absolute in S. Today, most states make the Doctrine of Worthier Title a rule of construction, rather than an absolute rule of law as it was at common law. In other words, the Doctrine applies only where the grantor’s language and surrounding circumstances indicate that he intended to keep a reversion. Here, O’s statement that he wants the gift to take effect exactly as written rebuts the presumption that a reversion rather than remainder was intended. Consequently, the gift will take effect as written, which means that O’s quitclaim deed to B was of no effect. Consequently, O’s heirs held a contingent remainder before O’s death, and that remainder vested in S when O died. When A died, S’s remainder became possessory.

23.  Fee simple in A subject to an executory limitation, and a shifting executory interest in fee simple in B. The bargain and sale raises a use in A in fee simple subject to condition subsequent, and a use in B. The Statute of Uses executes both of these uses. The net result is that if A or his heirs serves liquor on the property, then the gift over to B will take effect.