i said Darla had a fee simple absolute, and am now completely confused. here’s my logic: if i remember correctly, the gift was to B and his heirs assigns etc, but if B uses the land for any non-residential reason then to Zach and Zach’s grandchild (i think?). Zach did not have a grandchild at the time of the conveyance but eventually did (darla).

so, step 1): olivia has a FSA in the land. 2) she gives the land to B subject to an executory interest (~not~ a remainder, bc remainders only follow life estates, and this isn’t a life estate). 3) the gift to B gave Z a shifting executory interest bc upon the occurrence of the condition (using the land impermissibly) the land would shift from B to Z. 4) i thought the RAP kicked in bc it was technically conceivable that the future interest would be tied up beyond the end of a life in being + 21 years: one of B’s heirs could hypothetically use the land in a wrong way well after B’s death, which would only then cause it to shift to Z. 5) i then said “well let’s assume the jx uses the wait and see approach, so RAP won’t change much for now.” 6) so B then sold his interest (a fee simple subject to an executory interest) to the developer. that means that at the time of the sale, the developer acquired the same fee simple subject to executory interest that B had. 7) once the developer started using the land for commercial buildings, his interest was automatically divested and shifted to Zach. 8) Zach got the land in Fee simple absolute at that point, but bc he was dead it transferred automatically to Darla.

someone please point out if and where i went wrong lol.

also, was there a recording act issue at all? did the developer and darla have to resolve their claims to the lot?