Spring Semester 2013
Future Interests; The Vested/Contingent Distinction
1. Using the traditional categories for present estates and future interests recognized by the common law (do not worry about the new Restatement rules), work through the problems in the problem sets in note 3, page 289, note 2, page 302, and note 2, page 305.
2. In the Kost v. Foster case, Oscar argues that his remainder interest was contingent (i.e., subject to the condition precedent that he survive his father Ross). Why does he argue that his remainder interest is contingent? Can you explain why the court rejects his argument and instead characterizes his interest as a vested remainder subject to divestment?
3. Given the court's reasoning in the Kost v. Foster case, the court was wrong to split the remainder interest into 7 shares. Can you explain why?
4. If the Kost v. Foster case arose today (now that contingent remainders are alienable in Illinois), how would the case have been decided differently?