Second Thoughts

"The contrast between vested and contingent interests can be shown by returning to the fee simple subject to a condition subsequent and the companion concept, the right of re-entry. That type of fee is vested, but it may be lost (or divested) if the condition is breached. The right of re-entry is subject to a condition precedent, namely, the violation of the condition; therefore it is contingent. Only a fiction precludes the same analysis in relation to a determinable interest followed by the possibility of reverter. The determinable fee is vested. The possibility of reverter would logically (!) appear to be contingent, just as the right of re-entry, but a different view has prevailed in Canada. The determining event is regarded as marking a natural limitation of the estate granted and not as imposing a super-added condition. This means the possibility of reverter is treated as being vested at common law."

P.S. April 24 - happily in terms of exam-writing purposes (but ever-so unhappily in many, many other ways) I now actually understand the above. Three cheers for conditional transfers and the rule against perpetuities!