"That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document."
"That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document."
The Rule Against Perpetuities lol!
I've been out of law school almost 20 years and have never practiced anything related to property law but I can still rattle off that damn thing like it's the Pledge of Allegiance.
The other thing making me smile in all of this is the giddiness the Disney people must have felt as they looked around the meeting room and realized none of the dipshits showed up.
I've been out of law school almost 20 years and have never practiced anything related to property law but I can still rattle off that damn thing like it's the Pledge of Allegiance.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
I've been out of law school almost 20 years and have never practiced anything related to property law but I can still rattle off that damn thing like it's the Pledge of Allegiance.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
Well... It's standard in the sense that everyone who has been to law school would see it and understand exactly what they're doing. It's real life application is more limited.
I've been out of law school almost 20 years and have never practiced anything related to property law but I can still rattle off that damn thing like it's the Pledge of Allegiance.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
Yes!! It’s right up there with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in terms of law school mythology - lol. You only see it on exams, not real life!
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
Yes!! It’s right up there with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in terms of law school mythology - lol. You only see it on exams, not real life!
So it's here, not a myth. Explain to us how crazy it is. Like, do we see a unicorn with our own eyes? Or do we see an animal we thought gone?
Yes!! It’s right up there with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in terms of law school mythology - lol. You only see it on exams, not real life!
So it's here, not a myth. Explain to us how crazy it is. Like, do we see a unicorn with our own eyes? Or do we see an animal we thought gone?
“No interest 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.“
All of King Charles’ descendants who are alive today are the “lives in being” (Lilibet being the youngest, I believe.). Disney now holds a property interest until 21 years after the last grandchild dies. Assuming Lilibet lives as long as the Queen, that could be 100 years from now. If they all die during their annual Easter photo King Ralph style, it would only be 21 years.
Usually you pass property to your children or grandchildren so the rule isn’t invoked all that often. So animal we thought gone and forgot about, I guess!
I've been out of law school almost 20 years and have never practiced anything related to property law but I can still rattle off that damn thing like it's the Pledge of Allegiance.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
yes - it’s bread and butter estates and property law.
When you make a will (or otherwise give/sell a property interest), you can only control the property for so long. The ide is that someone can no longer say ‘to my children, then to their children, then their children, etc. for eternity.’ You can’t control it ‘in perpetuity.’ You must limit the bequest to a life in existence at the time the document becomes active (so in the case of a will, people alive at the time of the death, not necessarily at the time of the writing of it), plus 21 years to reach maturity. So in this case, the longest eat living current grandchild of Charles + 21 years.
It’s unusual in some ways to use a public figure’s lifespan as the time frame rather than an interested party, but I’m guessing it’s (1)easier to track the lifespan of royalty than other people and (2) that family has some longevity.
like 2(b)(6) It’s the kind of thing that comes up when a client wants to do something absurd and the lawyer has to say ‘sorry, I can’t do that for you.’ It comes up like ‘please don’t drive on the sidewalk’ it’s always a rule, but usually it’s in the background not being invoked until someone wants to break it.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
Yes!! It’s right up there with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in terms of law school mythology - lol. You only see it on exams, not real life!
I actually got to file a 12(b)(6) once and it was one of the greatest moments of my career.
So this is a standard thing? LOL! I think I love it even more if it's something that is a basic 101 thing that is thrown in.
yes - it’s bread and butter estates and property law.
When you make a will (or otherwise give/sell a property interest), you can only control the property for so long. The ide is that someone can no longer say ‘to my children, then to their children, then their children, etc. for eternity.’ You can’t control it ‘in perpetuity.’ You must limit the bequest to a life in existence at the time the document becomes active (so in the case of a will, people alive at the time of the death, not necessarily at the time of the writing of it), plus 21 years to reach maturity. So in this case, the longest eat living current grandchild of Charles + 21 years.
It’s unusual in some ways to use a public figure’s lifespan as the time frame rather than an interested party, but I’m guessing it’s (1)easier to track the lifespan of royalty than other people and (2) that family has some longevity.
like 2(b)(6) It’s the kind of thing that comes up when a client wants to do something absurd and the lawyer has to say ‘sorry, I can’t do that for you.’ It comes up like ‘please don’t drive on the sidewalk’ it’s always a rule, but usually it’s in the background not being invoked until someone wants to break it.
This is fascinating and one of the many reasons that I love this place, there's so much collective knowledge!
Yes!! It’s right up there with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in terms of law school mythology - lol. You only see it on exams, not real life!
I actually got to file a 12(b)(6) once and it was one of the greatest moments of my career.
I have regularly filed 12(b)(6) motions in my career. The idea that they are unicorns are so odd to me - but maybe I just deal with a lot of terribly drafted complaints.
I actually got to file a 12(b)(6) once and it was one of the greatest moments of my career.
I have regularly filed 12(b)(6) motions in my career. The idea that they are unicorns are so odd to me - but maybe I just deal with a lot of terribly drafted complaints.
I mostly did family law so just being in federal court and doing something other than family law was a rare treat.
Post by biscoffcookies on Mar 31, 2023 12:12:24 GMT -5
I can only imagine how self-satisfied the Disney lawyers were when they were drafting that stuff and it went through. I mean, hell, I want to buy them a drink.
I’ve read and reread the article and still don’t understand what Disney did but I am delighted they did it.
Glad it’s not just me.
So I think I understand.
Prior to this, all their decisions went through the Reedy District. That's what DeSantis changed up to seed with his minions.
Right before they took office, Disney - in full transparency and in accordance with the state's open government laws - shifted the responsibility away from the board and back to the company as a whole. If those idiot minions had attended any of the meetings prior to taking office, they would have seen what was going on and could have spoken up. Now all the board can do is manage roads and such.
Prior to this, all their decisions went through the Reedy District. That's what DeSantis changed up to seed with his minions.
Right before they took office, Disney - in full transparency and in accordance with the state's open government laws - shifted the responsibility away from the board and back to the company as a whole. If those idiot minions had attended any of the meetings prior to taking office, they would have seen what was going on and could have spoken up. Now all the board can do is manage roads and such.
Seems like an ok place to put this from the other day.
A number of the Florida governor’s donors and allies are worried his recent stumbles suggest he may not be ready for a brutal fight against Donald Trump. Some feel DeSantis needs to accelerate his timeline to run for the GOP presidential nomination and begin directly confronting Trump if he's to have any chance of thwarting the former president’s momentum. Others believe DeSantis should sidestep Trump altogether and wait until 2028 to run.
At a Sunday luncheon following the annual Red Cross ball in Palm Beach, Florida, a group of 16 prominent Republicans, described by one attendee as a mix of DeSantis backers and Trump "skeptics," discussed misgivings about the governor's standing for the future if he tussles with the former president.
Then there’s conservative billionaire shipping goods magnate Richard Uihlein and his wife, Elizabeth, whose $500,000 in combined contributions ranked them among the most generous donors to DeSantis’ 2022 re-election campaign.
A person familiar with the strategy around Uihlein’s spending said that right now, “The brakes are pumped,” adding, “The polling really made different people pause.”
If I were a Republican, I would be worried about DeSantis fighting Trump too. He's not as fast with comebacks as Trump, and he doesn't have any type of charisma at all, in fact I think he comes off kind of uncomfortable with public speaking. He would be so much better off waiting until Trump isn't in the picture at all. DeSantis is only 44, he has time. If Trump targets him, regardless of what happens to T in his trial, DeSantis won't come off well and that will hurt his image going forward.
Under this article is a video story that DeSantis is floating the idea of building a state prison near Disney. I swear to the heavens if Disney scoured their security video they would find footage of this fool taking a dump outside the gates daily.
Under this article is a video story that DeSantis is floating the idea of building a state prison near Disney. I swear to the heavens if Disney scoured their security video they would find footage of this fool taking a dump outside the gates daily.
I learned recently that he got married at Disney World. Which made me laugh way more than reasonable.
I'm still laughing, because this is DISNEY. They have waaaaaaaaaay more money than DeSantis does.
And the image of a grown man fuming over a mouse never gets old. I hope Disney burns some of that money they have just for burning to put DeSantis in his place. It's a dumpster, he belongs in a dumpster.
Finally!! I quickly read parts of the complaint where they quote one of the board people saying, something like they kicked the hornets nest. I mean, clear cut. This needs to be an open and shut case. I can’t wait for Disney’s legal team to run circles around this guy.
Post by maudefindlay on Apr 26, 2023 12:43:11 GMT -5
Disney's next movie needs to feature a bad guy modeled after DeSantis. Then when he complains ask him what parts of himself did he see in the character? No morals? Ogre like appearance?....
Post by neverfstop on Apr 26, 2023 12:44:27 GMT -5
This is great- let Desantis keep going all in on anti-abortion and suing the happiest place on earth....that's not going to play well in a general election if he decides to run.