Perpetuities Refinement: There Is an Alternative

Bloom, Ira Mark

Journal: Washington Law Review

Volume: 62

First Page: 23

Year: 1987

Bluebook Citation: 62 WASH. L. REV. 23 (1987)

Author: Ira Mark Bloom: all 9 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
1
Citing decision
1
Courts citing
Most recently cited by1
  • 1989Pound v. Shorter Ga.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

A new uniform law is in the offing: a Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP). The law is based on the wait-and-see approach to the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Under this approach, a waiting period is prescribed to see whether the contingency which renders a nonvested interest void under the common law Rule actually occurs. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to demonstrate why, in response to Professor Leach's basic question, we should not "wait-and-see"; second, to offer constructive alternatives to the wait-and-see approach.

Part I of this article identifies those areas of agreement between wait-and-see advocates and opponents, including the acknowledged desirability for some rule against perpetuities. In part II, the case for wait-and-see is summarized and the three major wait-and-see methods are described. These methods include: (1) the causal relationship method, (2) a measuring lives version under the Restatement (Second) of Property, and (3) the newly-unveiled proxy method under the USRAP. A recent debate between Professors Dukeminier and Waggoner highlights the controversy among scholars regarding the appropriate methodology under a wait-and-see approach.

Part III presents the case against the wait-and-see approach by addressing several underlying, but unfounded, assumptions. The most crucial assumption under wait-and-see is that a severe enough problem exists to warrant its adoption. Research, however, reveals a perpetuities violation averaging only one relevant case per year during the eight-year period, 1978-1985. Part IV makes the case for refining the common law Rule, based in part on a critique of an erroneous decision by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1985.

In addition, a statutory scheme for refinement is offered. Although the statutory package partially relies on existing or proposed solutions, the overall package has never been detailed. In the end, rejection of wait-and-see legislation generally, and the USRAP specifically, is urged. Adopting the wait-and-see approach to the common law Rule Against Perpetuities would be tantamount to buying and using "an atomic cannon to kill a gnat."

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.