Fee Simple Subject To An Executory Limitation
A fee simple subject to an executory limitation is an estate that ends when a specific condition is met and then transfers to a third party. The interest will not revert to the grantor. If the condition is met, the grantee loses the interest and the third party gains it automatically.
Example:
O grants Blackacre to A and A's heir; but if A ever accepts a candy bar from C, then to B and B's heirs.
Here, O is the original owner. She grants A a fee simple subject to the subsequent condition that he doesn't accept a candy bar from C. But unlike a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, Blackacre goes to a third party (B) instead of the grantor (O) if the condition is met. Also unlike a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, B then automatically gains the interest in Blackacre and does not only have a mere right to sue for re-entry.
What would happen if the property were conveyed? Let's say A sold Blackacre to D. If A afterwards accepted an offer for a candy bar from C, Blackacre automatically goes to B. But if A died without ever accepting a candy bar from C, the condition could not possibly be met. D would then have a fee simple absolute.
Read more about this topic: Defeasible Estate
Famous quotes containing the words fee, simple, subject and/or limitation:
“As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case, as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client.”
—Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865)
“Happy you poets who can be present and so present by a simple flicker of your genius, and not, like the clumsier race, have to lay a train and pile up faggots that may not after prove in the least combustible!”
—Henry James (1843–1916)
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)
“The French are certainly misunderstood:Mbut whether the fault is theirs, in not sufficiently explaining themselves; or speaking with that exact limitation and precision which one would expect ... or whether the fault may not be altogether on our side ... I shall not decide.”
—Laurence Sterne (1713–1768)