According to the rule, a future interest must be acquired within a certain period of time. This period is limited to the duration of a current life or life (the “Measuring Lifespan”) at the time of the transfer of interest in the property, plus twenty-one years. 2. In Freeman Estate, 404 P.2d 222, 228 (Kan. 1965) (“It is sufficient to violate the rule if an interest can be acquired beyond the permitted period.”). [Back to text] The lifetime of the person chosen to measure the period of eternity is called the measurement lifetime (also known as the validating life), to which 21 years are added to determine the period of eternity. Anyone can be selected, even someone who has nothing to do with the donor of future interest – even a celebrity. A life of measure can also be a child in utero, because the common law considers that the beginning of a life is at conception. Although any person can be used as a measure of life, it is believed that it is the person who has a present and possessive interest in the property, if that person is not specified in the document that justifies the future interest. 4.
Jason Oil Co.c. Littler, 446 pp.3d 1058, 1064 (Kan. 2019). « The distinction between special interests and contingent interests is of great importance for the rule against eternity, because a true self-interest is never repugnant to the rule, while a contingent interest can not only be, but often is. » McEwen v. Enoch, 204 p.2d 736, 739 (Kan. 1949). [Return to text] 38. Littler, 446 pp.3d to 1066.
“The relentless construction and contagious rule of disability have already been followed by most courts that have recognized the rule against eternity. If it was possible that part of an aircraft had been acquired beyond the authorized period, the entire aircraft had been dismantled. “In re Estate of Freeman, 404 S.2d 222, 229 (Kan. 1965). However, the Kansas Supreme Court never granted England`s relentless construction request. Id. at 230. [Back to text] It is argued that the creator of the future interest – either the testator of a will or the settlor of a trust – knows how best to distribute his property because he knows his beneficiaries, assets and objectives given the current circumstances. However, over time, beneficiaries die, assets change, and circumstances change.
The initiator of the future interest cannot foresee these changes and therefore cannot know the best use of the property. Rule against eternity: A rule that provides that certain future interest, if any, must be transferred within 21 years of the death of a life at the time the interest is created. The basic elements of the rule against eternity originated in England in the 17th century and were “crystallized” into a single rule in the 19th century.  The classic formulation of the rule was given in 1886 by the American jurist John Chipman Gray: Of course, this sentence is loaded with complex and often hidden meanings that make it difficult for most law students and lawyers to fully understand the rule. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a person from drafting any type of transfer agreement that could control the fate of the country he abandons fifty, sixty, a hundred or two hundred years after his death. Essentially, the law seeks to prevent dynastic property, the transmission of which is limited by the desires of someone who has been dead for hundreds of years. The purpose of the rule is to limit dead-hand control so that dead-hand control does not persist indefinitely if it cannot respond to current events that may lead to an inefficient allocation of economic resources. It can also cloud title deeds for many years.
Efficient resource allocation requires that the property be used optimally, which depends economically on who is willing to pay the highest price for it. However, if future interests are linked to a property, the current owner may not dispose of it because at some point in the future the property will go to another person who has already been named either by identification or by eventuality. Only an owner with a simple absolute title is free to dispose of his property – hence the requirement of the rule that someone receive a simple title or absolute ownership of the property in the eternal period. Many other scenarios are possible, and there are special rules for the appointment of powers. However, this ad hoc customary law is beginning to give way to more reasonable rules that should reduce uncertainty and prevent certain disputes in the future. Although some states have abolished the rule against eternity, the reason for its abolition is to attract fiduciary enterprises, but future interests still hinder the alienation of property, which is considered crucial for the efficient allocation of economic resources. The rule against eternity is one of the most difficult questions that law students face.  It is notoriously difficult to apply it correctly: in 1961, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was not an abuse of rights for an attorney to write a will that inadvertently violated the rule.  In the United States, the common law rule has been abolished by law in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
 It can be difficult to determine whether an interest granted by a trust violates the perpetuity rule. But keep in mind that it is still quite possible to create trust that lasts remarkably long. A trust founded in 1951 by the will of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst must exist at least until 2040. See Hearst v Ganzi (2006) 145 CA4th 1195, 52 CR3d 473. The validity of a future interest according to the rule against eternities is determined by 2 methods: The gestation period can also occur at the end of the measurement lifetime or the measurement lifetime. A person conceived before the death of a life of measure, but born after death, is considered to be for the purposes of the rule. For example, a testator leaves his estate to his grandchildren, who reach the age of twenty-one. The testator`s only child, William, was born six months after the testator`s death. William himself had only one child, Pamela, who was born six months after William`s death.
The testamentary dispositions that leave the property to Pamela are valid, and she will inherit her grandfather`s estate at the age of twenty-one. A more difficult question is whether an interest is of the type that is subject to the rule. In general, special interests are the rule, while special interests are not.  For example, an executable interest is an vested interest subject to the rule.  Conversely, current property rights that benefit from current use and enjoyment are not the rule.  The Jason Oil Co.c. Littler illustrates the difficulty of determining whether or not the rule applies to a particular interest.  In Little, Johnson J. concluded that, although the recipient`s interest was an enforceable jump interest normally subject to the rule, the rule was not applicable for reasons of public policy.  The court made the right decision. As we have seen in this commentary, the application of the rule in Littler would have been unfair at best.
However, the court stopped briefly; it`s time for Kansas to abolish the rule altogether. Real estate developer Henry G. Freeman founded the Henry G. Freeman Jr. Pin Money Fund, which was to provide the first lady of the United States with a pension of $12,000 per year. Freeman died in 1917, but no presidential spouse received payments from the fund until Freeman`s then-living offspring died in 1989. Although Freeman`s will stated that the payments “should remain in effect as long as this glorious government lasts,” the trustees of the fund decided that maintaining the trust for more than 21 years after 1989 would violate the rule for centuries and terminated the trust by agreement with the first lady at the time, Michelle Obama, in 2010. donate the fund to a charity instead. .