Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Property is definitively my favorite class right now. Contracts is hard and weirdly abstract in unfun ways. Criminal is straightforward and apparently easy, and our professor's pretty good, except he does my least favorite classroom game: guess the word I'm thinking. "C'mon, you can do it, what is it, what am I thinking, rhymes with schmintent, c'mon..." (while 80% of us are trying to telepath [or, alternately, IM] to the person on the spot, "SAY INTENT RIGHT NOW OR I'LL HUNT YOU DEAD!!").

But Property is cool. Even when we're not learning about geese and foxes and adverse possession (property is quite literally theft), we're learning this bizarre old-fangled stuff about estates, remainders, fee simple, and conveying property generally. One of my favorites is that there's a conditional estate called a "fee simple subject to a condition subsequent." If we hadn't renamed just a few weeks ago, this space would now be called "Subject to a Condition Subsequent," which is one of the best turns of phrase to describe the human condition I've ever heard.

The bummer, though, is the Rule Against Perpetuities. Basically, weird future contingent interests disappear if they don't succeed or fail within 21 years of the death of someone alive at the time of the will. I find this upsetting, because I was starting to hope I could carve out a practice as the lawyer representing people who show up 300 years down the line with the other half of some ring (or a birthmark), entitling them to reclaim Blackacre from the Bed Bath and Beyond that was built on its old site. So I'm going to start lobbying to get a Rule For Perpetuities.

No comments: