TO-WIT: AND GIVE MY LOVE TO ROSE
Although I am pretty much retired now, I am in the marrow of my bones still very much a lawyer. No doubt that’s why from time to time I yet enjoy taking my midday repast at Sans Merci, that dangerously undistinguished near-the-courthouse eatery where, come noontime, many of my favorite colleagues also congregate for assumption of the same culinary risk. As they say, the three most important reasons for the success of a business are location, location, location, and that certainly applies here. Sans Merci is only one block from the hospital.
Service being what it is there, we always have plenty of time to chat, enough time, in fact, to read and commit to memory an entire volume of the Decennial Digest; in the entire history of Sans Merci that would be the first time any patron ever had occasion to constructively use the word “digest.”
That day’s spontaneous conversation turned to a contracts case one colleague was currently litigating; at issue was whether or not there had been a mutual meeting of the minds so as to create an enforceable agreement. Recalling my freshman contracts class, I mentioned the possible applicability of “Rose of Abalone,” thinking, of course, that everyone would instantly comprehend the reference. To my utter astonishment, though, no one had a clue; to them the memory of “Rose” was as cold as the mammary gland of a female necromancer.
“Well then, what about the Rule in Shelley’s Case,” I tangentially inquired, or “The Rule Against Perpetuities? Do either of those ring a bell?” The unanimity of their negative reactions was the first undisputed response we have ever had in the entire history of our luncheon encounters.
Now come on, who doesn’t remember that the Rule in Shelley’s Case decrees that a real estate conveyance from A to B for life, remainder to the heirs of B, is a conveyance in fee simple to B. And except for those having lunch with me that day, who doesn’t know that the Rule Against Perpetuities voids ab initio any conveyance of land, the complete and untailed ownership of which has no possibility of fully vesting within 21 years of a life or lives in being at the time of the conveyance. As for Rose, you must certainly recall it involved the sale between farmers of a prize and valuable show cow that neither knew was expecting, and who therefore was entitled to the calf.
As lawyers, we need to be up on these things. I mean, who knows when one of our clients may become involved in a gravid bovine transaction gone awry? And yet, despite the faith I take in the scope and breadth of my intellectual recall, I couldn’t help but sense there may be other significant legal apothegms out there that I do not remember but need to. So, the first thing I did when I got back to my computer, well, I mean the first thing I did after checking emails, Facebook, Groupon and my favorite erotica websites, was to search for them, and, spoiler alert, I found some.
I suggest you read what follows with the fullness of your intellectual prowess, however meager. I’m submitting this piece for accreditation as a CLE, making this the first article I’ve ever written that may be worth your effort to remember.
The Rule In Bessie Mae Mucho’s Case – Shortly after Witchhazel, Texas enacted an ordinance prohibiting women from dancing in public with eggplants, Bessie Mae was indicted for swiveling on Main Street in a passionate and solitary mambo, salaciously clutching an offending nightshade one to each bosom. Her appeal made it all the way to SCOTUS which, despite the ordinance’s inherent gender bias and total lack of substantive due process, upheld her conviction anyway, holding that, all other things aside, eggplant is universally disgusting.
Vito’s of North Hollywood – Second only to Rose in the pantheon of contract litigation, this matter evolved when the parties failed to come to a meeting of the minds regarding whether the $30,000.00 eight-carat diamond ring that buyer had purchased for his new chippie from a popular and well-connected jeweler was or was not paste. Although the facts seemed to support the buyer, every tribunal that heard the case ruled for the seller, and to this very day scholars posit that the outcome was in some way influenced, however subtly, by the jeweler’s many associates.
The Other Rule Against Perpetuities – Arising from the common law of the highlands of Northwest South-Central Scotland, this doctrine from the fourteenth century, before it became settled law, was litigated more often than haggis is thrown up. It provides that a conveyance of real estate from A to B for life, remainder to the heirs of B, may be converted into a fee simple conveyance to the heirs of B by election, if said heirs, or any one of them, are in severe need of ready cash and have broadswords immediately at hand.
So now, if ever we should chance to share a luncheon together, you have the wherewithal to be a satisfactory companion. And if there is only one thing you take away from this presentation, just one thing, please let it be this: avoid the Surimi Rangoon Supreme at all costs.
©2021, S. Sponte, Esq.