Doctrine Off Topic
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
15006_bethel-ridge-vineyard · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice Beither Daniel or Levi, depending upon whether the destructibility of contingent remainders is recognized in the applicable jurisdiction.
Why it's attractive
Frames a vested-remainder fact pattern as a destructibility problem; the doctrine named is real but not in play here.
Why it's wrong
Frames a vested-remainder fact pattern as a destructibility problem; the doctrine named is real but not in play here.
15006_bethel-ridge-vineyard · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice CDaniel, because the contingent remainder never vested, and Daniel's reversion was entitled to possession immediately upon Naomi's death.
Why it's attractive
Asserts a reversion the grantor never retained (he conveyed life estate + vested remainder in fee) and a 'contingent remainder' that the deed never created.
Why it's wrong
Asserts a reversion the grantor never retained (he conveyed life estate + vested remainder in fee) and a 'contingent remainder' that the deed never created.
15006_bethel-ridge-vineyard · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DLevi, because he is Stephen's heir.
Why it's attractive
Stem states Stephen died 'devising all of his estate' — a will exhausts the estate, so the heir takes nothing by intestacy; 'his heirs and assigns' in the deed never gave the heirs a separate interest.
Why it's wrong
Stem states Stephen died 'devising all of his estate' — a will exhausts the estate, so the heir takes nothing by intestacy; 'his heirs and assigns' in the deed never gave the heirs a separate interest.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →