… the one against perpetuities
So… the eagle-eyed genealogists out there surely noticed that quirk in the legal story.
The one about the dust-up between the Disney Corporation and the State of Florida.
Where Disney did an end-run around a new governing board it doesn’t like by entering into an agreement with the old board it did like.
For those who missed it, The Legal Genealogist will focus your attention on the part that made provisions of the agreement last “until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this Declaration.”1
Oh boy… genealogy and the law.
Here’s the deal.
There’s a rule of law called the rule against perpetuities. It’s “a common law property rule that states that no interest in land is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.”2
And, my favorite law encyclopedia goes on to say: “Because the meaning of this rule is virtually impossible to decipher, many states have modified it, and some have abolished it altogether.”3
Well, yeah, it is kinda complicated. So much so that one California case actually concluded that it isn’t malpractice if a lawyer screws it up.4
The rule begins with the notion that you’re not supposed to be able to tie up land forever. So if, for example, you’re Disney, you can’t enter into a contract that covers the land Disney World sits on without an end date.
But, if you’re Disney, you want a contract that will last as long as the law allows.
And this rule sets out the absolute maximum time that a contract like this can last — usually stated as the time frame of “lives in being plus 21 years.”
That’s really helpful, isn’t it?
So… break it down.
“Lives in being” means you measure the time by the lifespan of some person who is or — more typically — some group of persons who are alive at the time the contract is made. So you measure the time using the actual lifespan of folks alive now in 2023 and the “lives in being” time ends when the last member of the group dies.
Then comes the “plus 21 years” part — you add another 21 years for good measure.
But in choosing the group to use, you’re not going to choose just any group of folks.
First off, you don’t want to run the risk that the folks you pick are all going to die off young. Remember your goal is to make a deal that will last as long as the law allows. So…
• You want a group that’s big enough that the odds are that somebody in the group will live a good long life.
• And you want a group that has enough advantages in terms of food and shelter and healthcare that will aid that good long life.
• And you want a group that’s spread out enough geographically that no natural or other disaster will likely take them all out at the same time.
And, of course, you don’t want to run the risk that nobody can figure out when the last person whose life is being used as a measure dies off. So you pick a group where it’s going to be easy to keep track of them.
That combination is why a royal family is a typical choice. And, preferably, a very long-lived royal family — and remember that Queen Elizabeth II was 96 years old when she died in 2022.5
So, assuming this deal withstands legal challenges, the living descendants of Charles III as of the time of the contract are seven in number: sons William and Harry and grandchildren George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie and Lilibet. The oldest, William, born in 1982, and the youngest, Lilibet, born in 2021.6
Assuming that Lilibet lives as long as her great grandmother did — to age 96, the “lives in being” time would end somewhere around the year 2117. And then you’d tack on the “plus 21 years” part, taking the end time for this contract to roughly the year 2138.
Even if none of the royal grandchildren alive today lived past the age of, say, 60, you’d still be talking a contract that wouldn’t end until sometime in the next century.
Oh, and just for the record… The Guardian in England reported: “Buckingham Palace declined to comment.”7
Yeah… even in modern contracts, there are quirks that bring families and family history into play.
Genealogy and the law.
What’s not to love?
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Obeying the rule,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 31 Mar 2023).
SOURCES
- JessH, “King Charles III’s Descendants & Fanciful Characters — How Disney May Subvert Governor DeSantis’ ‘Oversight District’,” WDWNews Today, posted 29 Mar 2023 (https://wdwnt.com/ : accessed 31 Mar 2023). ↩
- Wex, Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex : accessed 31 Mar 2023), “Rule Against Perpetuities.” ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- See Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583 (1961). ↩
- Wikipedia (https://www.wikipedia.com), “Elizabeth II,” rev. 21 Mar 2023. ↩
- See “Royal Family tree: King Charles III’s closest family and order of succession,” BBC News, posted 10 Mar 2023 (https://www.bbc.com/news/ : accessed 31 Mar 2023). ↩
- Jasper Jolly, “Disney v DeSantis dispute hinges on clause referencing King Charles III,” The Guardian, posted 30 Mar 2023 (https://www.theguardian.com/ : accessed 31 Mar 2023). ↩
Does the clause require the initial person to be living, as well? That is, must the clause commence in the lifetime of a living person–Charles III, in this case–or can it be a dead party, say Elizabeth II?
I don’t know of any requirement that the defining individual (Charles III, for example) be living — the limit is measured by the group defined (descendants of). That being said, the larger the group, the more likely the courts are to try to find a way to invalidate the clause. So picking all of EII’s descendants would have been legal, as far as I know.
My son’s AP Gov class discussed this very topic yesterday. The teacher was giddy and couldn’t help but laugh at the legal strategy. We still have teachers who can engage students. So much that Zachary had fun relating the story to me!
So … probably not “the last living descendant of the Holy Roman Emperor and King of the Franks Charlemagne, plus 21 years”?
Which agreement did Disney make with the old governing board that it did like?
“Where Disney did an end-run around a new governing board it doesn’t like by entering into an agreement with the old board it did like.”
The answer is in the linked posts. See the footnotes. (I’m not getting into any discussion of the fight itself, just the quirk.)
Thanks for explaining this, it is a very interesting legal concept. You presented it in a way that makes it easy to understand, and is of interest due to the individuals and the land involved in the contract. Your posts are always enjoyable to read.