Property law validating life
For example, the grant "For A so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises, then to B" would violate the rule as to B.
However, the conveyance to B would be stricken, leaving "To A so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises." This would create a fee simple determinable in A, with a possibility of reverter in the grantor (or the grantor's heirs).
Although most discussions and analysis relating to the rule revolve around wills and trusts, the rule applies to any future dispositions of property, including options.
When a part of a grant or will violates the rule, only that portion of the grant or devise is removed.
All other parts that do not violate the rule are still valid.
However, as the rule does not apply to grantors, the possibility of reverter in the grantor (or his heirs) would be valid.
In England, the Statute of Uses (1536) and the Statute of Wills (1540) and the consequent rise of flexible future interests made the rule a significant judicial tool in defeating the intent of landowners to impose limitations on remote future owners in grants and devises.
Major alterations to the common law rule in the United Kingdom came into effect under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, including the application of the traditional 21-year limitation period to options.
That case concerned Henry, 22nd Earl of Arundel, who had tried to create a shifting executory limitation so that one of his titles would pass to his eldest son (who was mentally deficient) and then to his second son, and another title would pass to his second son, but then to his fourth son.
The estate plan also included provisions for shifting the titles many generations later if certain conditions should occur.