Happy New Year! And a Question
January 2, 2025 § 3 Comments
By: Donald Campbell
Happy New Year to all! I’m getting back into the groove here at the law school and an interesting topic has been circulating on a Property Professor list serve I follow: should the Rule Against Perpetuities still be taught in the first year Property law course? This same topic circulated on the list serve about 5 years ago and the consensus was that it should be taught. This time, however, the consensus has flipped, with most saying that they do not teach it or that they just introduce it but do not test it. There are 4 primary justifications given for moving away from the Rule: (1) the Rule has lost relevance with the move to abolish the Rule or to adopt the modern “wait-and-see” approach; (2) the time it takes to teach the rule is disproportionate to likelihood that it will arise in practice; and (3) the Rule is best left to upper level classes (such as Wills and Trusts); and (4) the Bar exam rarely tests the Rule (and the NextGen bar will not test it at all).
I have always taught and tested on the Rule. I have also taught (and tested) the other common law rules that abolish future interests: Doctrine of Worthier Title, the Rule in Shelley’s Case, and Destructibility of Contingent Remainders.
I come to the hive-mind to ask: should I still teach the Rule? What about the other rules that destroy future interests? I teach Wills and Trusts and I do not teach the Rule, so if the students do not get exposure to it in Property they are not likely to have any exposure to it. Does the Rule still have relevance today? Does it come up often in practice? Any other thoughts?
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 
I am a paralegal of 30 years. My boss taught them to me. I would think it at least needs to be mentioned in both property law and also in wills and estates.
I had real property under Guff Abbott in law school. He did not teach the rule. He said we would never use it and what we needed to learn for the Bar exam could be done through minimal study prior to the exam. I’ve been practicing law for 30 years and I have only seen one instance of the rule being applicable. I think brief coverage of the subject is sufficient!
In 38 years of practice, I can only recall one case where the rule against perpetuities actually applied. I think property students need to at least know what it says and the intent before they get out of property-minimal exposure is my 2 cents on the subject.
Paul E. Rogers
Rogers, Ainsworth & Williams, PLLC
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
567 Highway 51, Suite B
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Office: 601.969.7777
Direct: 601-627-7990
Fax: 601.352.8658
E-mail: paul@rogersawlaw.compaul@rogersawlaw.com
Over 100 years of combined legal experience
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. This communication and any accompanying documents are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such disclosure shall not in any way compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and destroy the original message. Thank you.