The “rule against eternity” is often described as one of the most complex laws of existence!
Its origins date back to feudal England – some say as early as 1680 – when landowners often tried to control the use and disposition of property outside the cemetery – a concept often referred to as control by the “dead hand.”
The rule against immortality is meant to prevent people from tying up property – both real and personal – from generation to generation. In feudal England, the practice was to place land in trust forever, with subsequent generations living off the land without actually owning it. The catalyst for this practice was the evasion of certain taxes levied on the transfer of land after the death of the owner. Perpetual trusts avoid taxes, but many argue that the practice has the detrimental effect of concentrating large amounts of wealth among a few members of society.
The rule against immortality, then, was designed to ensure that some people would actually own land within a reasonable time after the diverter’s death. To achieve that result, the rule states that no interest in the property will be valid unless it can be demonstrated that it will be awarded, if at all, no later than 21 years after several lifetimes at the time of the flower’s creation.
While the rule may seem straightforward, it has become one of the most complex of legal rules for this reason: it requires, with absolute certainty, that an interest in property be granted no later than 21 years after multiple lives at creation. of interest. If there is a possibility that interest will not be awarded during that period, then the prize fails ab initio, ie from the moment the document making the interest takes effect. For wills, this is the time of death of the testator. For a trust, this is when the transaction is complete.
Let’s consider a few examples that illustrate the application of this rule:
1. John’s will stated that Land A would be given to Joseph’s first child who reached the age of 21 years. If Joseph had wanted to have any children at all, they would have reached the age of 21 within 21 years of Joseph’s death. Therefore, gifts do not violate the rules of immortality.
2. John’s will stated that Land A would be given to Joseph’s first son for marriage. The gift does not apply under the eternal rule because (a) it is possible that Joseph will have children during his lifetime and (b) if he does, there is no certainty that either of them will marry within 21 years of Joseph’s death.
3. John’s guardianship stated that, after his death, his friend Mary was entitled to live in his house for the rest of his life, then the house was given to Mary’s eldest child. The measurement period is the life of Mary, plus 21 years. Since the gift to Mary’s eldest child would have been given, if any, immediately after Mary’s death, the gift did not violate the rule of immortality.
4. John’s guardianship stated that, upon his death, his lodge in Vermont would go to the first member of the scout troop for the rank of eagle. The prize does not apply under the law against eternity because it is possible that no one will get the rank of eagle from his scout troop for life at the time of John’s death, plus 21 years. For one thing, troops may cease to exist before one reaches that rank.
The complexity of the rule against eternity is further evidenced by the problem of the unborn widow. Suppose John, from our example above, wanted to give his property to his son, Joseph, and Joseph’s wife, and then to their children.
The provisions in John’s trust or will would look like this:
To Joseph for life, then to his wife for life, then to Joseph’s children.
This was a reasonable reward for John’s death, but it violated the rules of eternity.
Suppose Joseph was married, but had no children, at the time of John’s death. This means that Joseph and his wife are Lives in Being. If Joseph’s wife dies or if Joseph and his wife divorce and if Joseph remarries someone born after John’s death, then Joseph’s new wife cannot live. Thus, he could outlive Joseph by more than 21 years and transfer to Joseph’s children after the death of Joseph’s wife would be outside the measurement period, thus violating the rule regarding immortality.
Now suppose Joseph was unmarried at the time of John’s death and that Joseph was married afterward. Again, Joseph’s wife would not be a living being for the purposes of applying the rule – and, it is possible that she could outlast Joseph by more than 21 years, thereby preventing Joseph’s children from vesting in the property within the measurement period.
If you thought that the rule against immortality was something that didn’t apply to you, think again. If you have a will or trust providing a contingent beneficiary should something happen to the primary beneficiary, the rules against immutability come into play. For this reason, if you have a will or trust, there may be a clause that addresses this rule. Most were simply titled, “Rules against Immortality.”
In recent years, many states have changed the rules or removed them altogether. Part of the reason, of course, is the complexity of the rules themselves. However, there is also a growing trend in this country to remove any barriers to the accumulation and preservation of wealth, which the rule against eternity has been opposed for more than three hundred years.
With several states completely removing immutability laws, we are now seeing the emergence of estate planning vehicles specifically designed to preserve wealth from generation to generation. We’ll take a look at one of the more popular vehicles next time.
Another time: “dynastic beliefs.”