California Bar Future Interests

Last updated: May 2, 2026

Future Interests questions are one of the highest-leverage areas to study for the California Bar. This guide breaks down the rule, the elements you need to recognize, the named traps that catch most students, and a memory aid that scales to test day. Read it once, then practice the same sub-topic adaptively in the app.

The rule

When a grantor transfers less than her entire estate, the law classifies what is left over (in the grantor) and what is given to others (in transferees) into a fixed menu of future interests. In the grantor: the reversion (follows any lesser estate not exhausted), the possibility of reverter (follows a fee simple determinable), and the right of entry/power of termination (follows a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent — must be expressly retained). In transferees: the remainder (vested or contingent, follows a finite estate like a life estate or term of years) and the executory interest (cuts short or springs after a gap, including any third-party interest following a defeasible fee). California has largely abolished the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities for instruments effective on or after January 1, 1992, replacing it with the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP), Cal. Prob. Code §§ 21205–21209, which adds a 90-year wait-and-see period; the common-law RAP still governs older instruments and is heavily tested on the MBE.

Elements breakdown

Reversion

The future interest retained by a grantor who conveys a vested estate of lesser duration than she owns.

Grantor owned a vested estate
Grantor conveyed a smaller vested estate
No third-party future interest fills the gap
Interest automatically returns to grantor or her successors

Common examples:

O, owning fee simple, conveys 'to A for life' — O has a reversion
O conveys 'to A for 20 years' — O has a reversion in fee

Possibility of Reverter

The future interest automatically retained by a grantor who conveys a fee simple determinable.

Grantor conveyed a fee simple
Conveyance used durational language
Estate ends automatically on the stated event
Interest reverts to grantor without action

Common examples:

'To A so long as the land is used for a school' — O has a possibility of reverter
Durational words: 'so long as,' 'while,' 'during,' 'until'

Right of Entry (Power of Termination)

The future interest a grantor must expressly retain after conveying a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent.

Grantor conveyed a fee simple
Conveyance used conditional language
Grantor expressly reserved a right to re-enter
Estate continues until grantor affirmatively retakes

Common examples:

'To A, but if liquor is sold on the premises, O may re-enter and retake' — O has a right of entry
Conditional words plus express retake clause: 'but if,' 'provided that,' 'on condition that'

Vested Remainder

A future interest in a third party that follows a finite estate, is given to an ascertained person, and is not subject to any condition precedent.

Created in a third-party transferee
Follows a finite estate (life estate or term)
Holder is born and ascertained
No condition precedent to taking

Common examples:

Indefeasibly vested: 'to A for life, then to B' (B alive)
Vested subject to open: 'to A for life, then to A's children' once one child is born
Vested subject to total divestment: 'to A for life, then to B, but if B dies under 21, to C'

Contingent Remainder

A remainder created in an unascertained person or subject to an unmet condition precedent.

Created in a third-party transferee
Follows a finite estate
Holder unascertained OR condition precedent unmet
Interest fails if condition unmet at termination of prior estate (at common law; California preserves by statute)

Common examples:

'To A for life, then to A's children' (A has no children) — unborn takers
'To A for life, then to B if B graduates from law school' — condition precedent

Executory Interest

A future interest in a third party that either cuts short a prior vested estate (shifting) or springs out of the grantor after a gap (springing).

Created in a third-party transferee
Does NOT follow a natural finite estate as a remainder
Either divests a prior transferee (shifting) or divests grantor after gap (springing)
Subject to RAP at common law; USRAP in California for post-1992 instruments

Common examples:

Shifting: 'to A and her heirs, but if liquor is sold, then to B'
Springing: 'to A when A marries' — interest springs out of O after a gap

Rule Against Perpetuities (Common Law) and California USRAP

At common law, no contingent future interest is valid unless it must vest, if at all, within 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest. California applies USRAP to instruments effective on or after January 1, 1992, validating an interest if it actually vests or terminates within 90 years.

Interest must be of a type subject to RAP (contingent remainder, executory interest, vested remainder subject to open)
Identify validating life in being at creation
Interest must vest or fail within life in being plus 21 years (common law)
Under California USRAP, alternative 90-year wait-and-see period applies
Reversionary interests in the grantor (reversion, possibility of reverter, right of entry) are exempt

Common examples:

Charity-to-charity exception: shift between two charities is exempt
'To A's first child to reach 30' (A childless) — common-law violation; USRAP wait-and-see

Common patterns and traps

The Defeasible-Fee Remainder Trap

The single highest-yield trap in future interests. A future interest in a third party following a defeasible fee (fee simple determinable or fee simple subject to executory limitation) cannot be a remainder — it must be an executory interest, because a fee has no natural termination. Test-takers fixate on the word 'then' and reflexively call any third-party interest a 'remainder.' The classification matters because executory interests are subject to RAP at common law, while reversions and possibilities of reverter in the grantor are exempt.

An answer choice says 'B has a vested remainder' or 'B has a contingent remainder' when the conveyance reads 'to A and her heirs, but if [event], then to B.' That third-party interest is an executory interest, not a remainder.

The Missing Express Reservation Trap

A right of entry (also called power of termination) does NOT arise automatically — the grantor must expressly reserve it. If a conveyance uses conditional language ('but if X') without reserving the right to re-enter, the courts often construe the result as a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter, or in some jurisdictions just a covenant. Distractors will say 'O has a right of entry' from the bare conditional language.

An answer choice says 'O retains a right of entry' based solely on the words 'on condition that' without any clause reserving re-entry. Watch for the absence of 'and O may re-enter' or equivalent.

The California-vs-Common-Law RAP Switch

On the MBE you apply common-law RAP: an interest is void if it might not vest within a life in being plus 21 years. California, however, adopted USRAP for instruments taking effect on or after January 1, 1992, providing a 90-year wait-and-see backup. A California essay graders expects you to flag both rules and identify which governs based on the instrument's effective date. MBE distractors will offer the 'wait and see' answer to trap students who mix up the two.

A 1995 California will creates 'to A's first child to reach 30.' An answer choice says 'void under RAP' (common-law analysis); the California-correct answer is 'wait and see for 90 years under USRAP.'

The Vested-Subject-to-Open Misclassification

A class gift to 'A's children' becomes a vested remainder subject to open the moment the first class member is born and ascertained. Before any child is born, it is a contingent remainder (unascertained takers). Test-takers either freeze it as 'contingent' even after a child is born, or call it 'indefeasibly vested' and forget the class can still expand. A vested remainder subject to open is subject to RAP because it can still grow.

An answer choice says 'A's children have a contingent remainder' in a fact pattern where A has one living child at the time of the conveyance — wrong; it became vested subject to open.

The Reversion-Always-Vested Trap

Reversions in the grantor are always treated as vested for RAP purposes — even when they look conditional. So 'to A for life, then to B if B survives A' creates a contingent remainder in B AND a reversion in O (in case B does not survive). The reversion is exempt from RAP. Distractors will tell you the grantor 'has nothing left' or that the conveyance leaves a 'gap' that fails — but the reversion fills the gap.

An answer choice says 'O retained no interest' in a conveyance creating only a contingent remainder in a third party. The correct reading: O retained a reversion that becomes possessory if the contingency fails.

How it works

Start with the grantor's original estate and ask what she gave away. If she conveyed a smaller vested estate (a life estate or term of years) and did not name a third-party taker, what is left in her is a reversion. If she conveyed a fee simple but tied it to a stated event using durational language ('so long as'), she keeps a possibility of reverter — automatic. If she used conditional language ('but if') and expressly reserved the right to re-enter, she keeps a right of entry — but only if expressly retained. Now look at the third-party future interests: a remainder waits patiently for a finite estate to end naturally; an executory interest either cuts short a prior estate or springs out after a gap. So 'to A for life, then to B' gives B a vested remainder, but 'to A and her heirs, but if liquor is sold, then to B' gives B an executory interest because B is cutting short A's fee. The classification dictates whether the Rule Against Perpetuities applies — reversionary interests in the grantor are exempt; contingent remainders, executory interests, and vested remainders subject to open are subject to RAP at common law and USRAP in California for post-1992 instruments.

Worked examples

Worked Example 1

What interest, if any, did Marisol Patel hold immediately after the 2010 conveyance?

A A vested remainder in fee simple, because the conveyance names her by name and her interest follows the Society's estate.
B A contingent remainder in fee simple, because her interest is conditional on the premises ceasing to be used as a museum.
C A shifting executory interest in fee simple, which is void under the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities. ✓ Correct
D Nothing, because a conveyance to a charity that is then shifted to a private party is barred by the charity-to-charity exception.
E
F

Why C is correct: The Society holds a fee simple subject to an executory limitation (durational language plus a third-party cutoff). A future interest in a third party following a defeasible fee is always an executory interest, not a remainder — fees have no natural end. Patel's executory interest could vest centuries from now (the museum-use condition could fail at any time, and Patel or her heirs could take well beyond any life in being plus 21 years), so under the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities the interest is void at creation. Note: California's USRAP would 'wait and see' for 90 years, but on the common-law MBE analysis the interest is struck down ab initio, leaving the Society with a fee simple determinable and Reyes (now Daniel) with a possibility of reverter.

Why each wrong choice fails:

A: A remainder requires a finite preceding estate (life estate or term). The Society holds a fee, which has no natural end, so Patel's interest cannot be a remainder — it is an executory interest that cuts the fee short. (The Defeasible-Fee Remainder Trap)
B: Same defect as choice A: third-party interests following a defeasible fee are executory interests, not remainders, regardless of whether they are vested or contingent in form. (The Defeasible-Fee Remainder Trap)
D: The charity-to-charity exception exempts a shift from one charity to another charity from RAP. Here the shift is from a charity to a private individual, so the exception does not apply — and the answer also misstates the exception as a bar rather than a safe harbor.

Worked Example 2

Immediately after Owen's conveyance, what is the proper classification of the interests of Anika's children?

A Ben and Carla each hold a vested remainder subject to open and to complete divestment if they fail to reach 21; David holds an executory interest.
B Ben and Carla each hold a contingent remainder because they have not yet reached 21; David, born after the conveyance, holds nothing. ✓ Correct
C Ben and Carla each hold an indefeasibly vested remainder because they were named members of the class at the time of the conveyance.
D All three children hold a springing executory interest because the gift contains a condition precedent of reaching 21.
E
F

Why B is correct: The gift to 'Anika's children who reach the age of 21' contains a condition precedent (reaching 21) that has not been satisfied for any child at the time of the conveyance. Ben and Carla are ascertained class members but their interest is subject to a condition precedent, so each holds a contingent remainder, and the class can still open to admit later-born children like David. (Some authorities classify this as 'vested subject to open and to a condition precedent,' but the dominant common-law treatment when no class member has yet satisfied the age contingency is a contingent remainder in the existing members and the class.) Owen retains a reversion in case no child reaches 21.

Why each wrong choice fails:

A: A vested remainder subject to open requires that at least one class member has satisfied any condition precedent and is presently entitled. Here neither Ben nor Carla has reached 21, so the condition precedent is unmet for everyone — the interests remain contingent. (The Vested-Subject-to-Open Misclassification)
C: An indefeasibly vested remainder requires no condition precedent and a closed class. Both fail here: there is an unmet age condition, and the class can still open to admit afterborn children of Anika. (The Vested-Subject-to-Open Misclassification)
D: A springing executory interest divests the grantor after a gap; this gift follows a life estate, so it is in remainder form, not executory. Calling it 'springing' confuses condition-precedent contingent remainders with executory interests. (The Defeasible-Fee Remainder Trap)

Worked Example 3

What is the most likely outcome of Teresa's ejectment action?

A Teresa wins, because she retained a right of entry that automatically arises whenever a deed uses conditional language such as 'on condition that.'
B Teresa wins, because she retained a possibility of reverter, and the violation of the condition automatically returned title to her.
C Teresa loses, because she did not expressly reserve a right of entry, and California courts will not imply a power of termination from bare conditional language. ✓ Correct
D Teresa loses, because the original conveyance violated the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities and is void in its entirety.
E
F

Why C is correct: A right of entry (power of termination) must be expressly reserved by the grantor — it does not arise by implication from bare conditional language. Teresa's deed used conditional words ('on condition that') but never reserved a right to re-enter or retake. Most modern courts, including California, will not imply a power of termination, and many treat such language as creating a covenant or, at most, requiring an express reservation that is missing here. Because Teresa retained no enforceable possessory future interest, ejectment fails. The drafting lesson: 'but if X, then O may re-enter and retake' is the magic language; 'on condition that' alone is not enough.

Why each wrong choice fails:

A: This states the precise fallacy the rule rejects. Conditional language alone does not create a right of entry; it must be expressly reserved. Calling the right 'automatic' also confuses it with a possibility of reverter, which is a different interest tied to durational (not conditional) language. (The Missing Express Reservation Trap)
B: A possibility of reverter follows a fee simple determinable, which is created by durational language ('so long as,' 'until,' 'while'). The deed used conditional language ('on condition that'), which does not create a determinable fee, so no possibility of reverter arose. (The Missing Express Reservation Trap)
D: RAP applies only to contingent future interests in transferees (and vested remainders subject to open); reversionary interests in the grantor — including any right of entry or possibility of reverter — are exempt. The conveyance is not void under RAP. (The California-vs-Common-Law RAP Switch)

Memory aid

Grantor keeps three: Reversion (after a finite estate), Possibility of Reverter (after fee simple determinable, automatic), Right of Entry (after fee simple subject to condition subsequent, must be reserved). Third party gets two: Remainder (waits for natural end of finite estate) or Executory Interest (cuts short or springs). Mnemonic for durational vs. conditional: 'SUDS' (So long as, Until, During, While) = determinable / possibility of reverter; 'BPC' (But if, Provided that, on Condition that) = condition subsequent / right of entry.

Key distinction

The single most-tested distinction is remainder vs. executory interest in a third party. A remainder waits for a finite estate (life estate or term of years) to end naturally; an executory interest cuts short a prior estate or springs out of the grantor after a gap. If the prior estate is a defeasible fee, the third-party future interest is ALWAYS an executory interest, never a remainder — because a fee simple has no natural end.

Summary

Classify by asking who holds the future interest (grantor or third party), what estate precedes it (finite or fee), and whether it waits naturally (remainder) or interrupts (executory interest); then run RAP under common law or California's USRAP based on the instrument's date.

Practice future interests adaptively

Reading the rule is the start. Working California Bar-format questions on this sub-topic with adaptive selection, watching your mastery score climb in real time, and seeing the items you missed return on a spaced-repetition schedule — that's where score lift actually happens. Free for seven days. No credit card required.

Start your free 7-day trial

Frequently asked questions

What is future interests on the California Bar?

How do I practice future interests questions?

The fastest way to improve on future interests is targeted, adaptive practice — working questions that focus on your specific weak spots within this sub-topic, getting immediate feedback, and revisiting items you missed on a spaced-repetition schedule. Neureto's adaptive engine does this automatically across the California Bar; start a free 7-day trial to see your sub-topic mastery climb in real time.

What's the most important distinction to remember for future interests?

Is there a memory aid for future interests questions?

What's a common trap on future interests questions?

Calling B's interest a 'remainder' when it follows a defeasible fee — it's an executory interest

What's a common trap on future interests questions?

Forgetting that a right of entry must be expressly reserved (no automatic right of entry)

Ready to drill these patterns?

Take a free California Bar assessment — about 30 minutes and Neureto will route more future interests questions your way until your sub-topic mastery score reflects real improvement, not luck. Free for seven days. No credit card required.

Start your free 7-day trial

California Bar Future Interests

The rule

Elements breakdown

Reversion

Possibility of Reverter

Right of Entry (Power of Termination)

Vested Remainder

Contingent Remainder

Executory Interest

Rule Against Perpetuities (Common Law) and California USRAP

Common patterns and traps

The Defeasible-Fee Remainder Trap

The Missing Express Reservation Trap

The California-vs-Common-Law RAP Switch

The Vested-Subject-to-Open Misclassification

The Reversion-Always-Vested Trap

How it works

Worked examples

Memory aid

Key distinction

Summary

Practice future interests adaptively

Frequently asked questions

What is future interests on the California Bar?

How do I practice future interests questions?

What's the most important distinction to remember for future interests?

Is there a memory aid for future interests questions?

What's a common trap on future interests questions?

What's a common trap on future interests questions?

Related California Bar sub-topics

Ready to drill these patterns?