REAL PROPERTY — ANNOTATED MODEL ESSAY
This essay models a classic recording-act and future-interests fact pattern. Read the black text as the answer you would write under timed conditions; the gold boxes explain why each move earns points.
Olga owned Blackacre in fee simple. In 2015 she executed and delivered a deed conveying Blackacre "to my brother Boris for life, then to such of Boris's children as reach the age of 21." At the time of the conveyance Boris had one child, Carla, age 6. The jurisdiction has not abolished the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities.
In January 2020, Boris (without Olga's knowledge) sold and delivered a deed purporting to convey "all my interest in Blackacre in fee simple" to Pam, a bona fide purchaser who paid full value and immediately recorded. Pam did not inspect the property; Boris was living on it and Carla, then age 11, lived there with him.
In March 2020, Boris executed a second deed purporting to convey the same fee interest to Quinn, who knew nothing of the earlier deed, paid value, and recorded the same day. The jurisdiction's recording statute provides: "No conveyance of an interest in land shall be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value and without notice whose conveyance is first recorded."
(1) What present and future interests were created by Olga's 2015 deed, and are any void under the Rule Against Perpetuities? (2) As between Pam and Quinn, who has the superior claim to whatever interest Boris held? (3) What did Pam or Quinn actually acquire?
Model Answer — with annotations
Black text is the answer you could realistically write under timed conditions. The gold boxes explain why each move earns points.
I. The State of the Title After Olga's 2015 Deed
Olga's deed conveyed Blackacre "to Boris for life, then to such of Boris's children as reach 21." The words "for life" create a life estate in Boris. Boris is therefore the present possessory tenant, and as a life tenant he holds only a life estate — he cannot convey more than he owns.
The future interest "to such of Boris's children as reach 21" is a gift to a class (Boris's children) whose membership and identity remain uncertain. Because the takers are not yet ascertained and the gift is subject to the condition precedent of reaching 21, the interest is a contingent remainder in an open class, not a vested remainder. It is held by Carla and any later-born children of Boris.
Because there is a contingent remainder, the grantor Olga retains a reversion: if no child of Boris ever reaches 21, Blackacre returns to Olga (or her successors). A reversion is always retained whenever the conveyance might fail to dispose of the entire fee.
II. The Rule Against Perpetuities
The Rule Against Perpetuities voids any contingent future interest that is not certain to vest or fail within 21 years of the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest. Here the contingency is a child of Boris reaching 21. Boris is a life in being. Any child of Boris must necessarily reach 21 (or fail to) within 21 years of Boris's death — a child living at Boris's death will turn 21 within 21 years, and the gestation period covers a child conceived but unborn at his death. The age contingency (21) tracks the perpetuities period exactly. The interest is therefore valid; it cannot vest too remotely.
III. Pam v. Quinn — The Recording Act Contest
The statute provides that a conveyance is invalid against a subsequent purchaser for value, without notice, whose conveyance is first recorded. Protecting a later purchaser only if they take without notice and record first makes this a race-notice statute. To prevail, a subsequent purchaser must (1) pay value, (2) take without notice of the prior interest, and (3) record before the prior grantee.
Quinn took after Pam. To defeat Pam, Quinn must be a bona fide purchaser without notice who recorded first. But Pam recorded immediately in January 2020, before Quinn took in March 2020. Pam's recorded deed gave Quinn constructive (record) notice of Pam's prior interest. Because Quinn had notice, Quinn cannot satisfy the "without notice" element, and in any event Pam — not Quinn — recorded first. Pam therefore prevails over Quinn under the race-notice statute.
One additional wrinkle: Pam did not inspect the property, and Boris and Carla were in possession. Open possession by a non-grantor can impose a duty to inquire, giving constructive inquiry notice. But Pam took from Boris, the possessor, so Boris's possession was consistent with Pam's deed and triggered no duty to inquire further. Carla's presence as a minor child living with her father did not signal an adverse claim a reasonable buyer would investigate. Pam thus remains a purchaser without notice and keeps her priority.
IV. What Pam Actually Acquired
Winning the recording contest does not enlarge what Boris had to give. Boris held only a life estate, so his deed — however it was worded — could convey no more than a life estate pur autre vie measured by Boris's own life. Pam therefore owns an estate that lasts only as long as Boris lives. At Boris's death, the estate ends and Blackacre passes to whichever of Boris's children have reached 21 (the contingent remainder), or reverts to Olga if none qualifies. Quinn, having lost to Pam, took nothing.
- Classifies every interest precisely: life estate, contingent remainder in an open class, and reversion — the full state of the title.
- Runs the Rule Against Perpetuities by identifying a validating life (Boris) and explaining why a 21-year age condition cannot vest too remotely.
- Reads the statutory language to correctly type the act as race-notice, then applies all three elements (value, notice, recording order).
- Defeats Quinn on two independent grounds and disposes of the inquiry-notice red herring with the grantor-in-possession rule.
- Closes the loop with the controlling principle — a grantee takes no more than the grantor owned — giving Pam only a life estate pur autre vie.
- Follows clean IRAC, answers every call of the question, and tracks the estate forward to its termination.
📝 Now make it yours. Learn the rules behind this essay in the Black Letter Law book and Essay Model Language bank, sharpen your radar with the Issue-Spotting Checklists, then write your own and get it AI-graded at BarExamNextGen.