Simple and clear. Keep making these videos. It’s very helpful for dummies like me. It brings forth a lot of clarity. The textbook helps but this helps 10x more
Wait, I’m confused. In the visual with the King, it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back the king and if something happens to the king, it goes to the remainderman. But in the currently life visual it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back to the remainderman, then life tenant. Am I missing something?
This video overall was very helpful, however there was some confusion for me with some of the terms (life tenant and life estate holder). They seemed to be used differently in the examples, and varied when I compared it to the Prep Agent e-book section on Life Estate. I noticed some other people were confused by this and I think the e-book is correct and I think some terms got misused here but please correct me if I am wrong. I am still struggling to fully understand life tenant vs. life estate holder. In the first example the "pawns" were labeled as the holders of the life estate. But in the next example the person who is conveying the property is referred to as the life estate holder and the person receiving property is the life tenant who will get the property for the remainder of the original life estate holders life. I think the second example is correct and the first example has the "pawns" mislabeled. In this example they should be called the life tenants and the king is the holder of the life estate. At least this is how I am understanding it after reading the e-book.
People have to stop making complex videos like this with a million positive comments and then mislabel things. I've spent more time dissecting his videos and emailing my instructor on who is right, UA-cam guy or course book, than just moving ahead with the course book. The damn cartoon is convincing but so confusing and wasting valuable time.
The concept of life estates has been mind boggling to me; part of it is trying to understand WHY someone would give, receive, have/want a life estate...same with Easements, but that's another video, lol...but your analogy really helped! Sometimes us adults just need a cartoon scenario to help us to understand a concept! Thank you! :)
do you need full ownership of a home to do this as well. If not and there is a loan the home, who pays the mortgage? What happens if one doesn't pay the mortgage?
so is the life estate holder also called the life tenant? the video says the life tenant can sell interest in the estate but when the holder dies rights revert back to the remainderman or the tenant.
The king example is great but its very confusing after that: At 2:28 the term Life Tenant is introduced (A life estate is an interest in an estate that lasts for the life of the life tenant). This is confusing for several reasons, the most basic is because the life tenant appears in the same location as the "king" hence a natural association of the Life Tenant with the King and the Life Estate Holder with the Pawn as it was introduced as such (2:03) but then at 2:37 it appears the terms "Life Tenant and Estate Holder" are being used interchangeably. But then the remainderman appears next to the Life Tenant which makes you re associate the Life Tenant with the King. But the Life Tenant is not the King, the King is the Grantor. A Life Estate lasts until the death of the grantor or until the death of the life tenant ( occupier/conditional owner). I'm not sure why this video doesn't use the term Grantor of the Life Estate ... The basic chain of possession for a Life Estate is: The Grantor > Life Tenant > Death of Life tenant or Death of Grantor > Grantor or Remainderman (Life tenant can sell or lease the property during their life but they can't destroy or will it to anyone).
Hi, I have life use of my home with my sister as the remainderman. Can a lien be placed on the home if I were to lose a civil trial or does the life estate protect against that? (NY state). Ty so much.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the pawns had ownership of the property as long as the king stayed alive wouldn’t that be Life Estate Pur Antre Vie and a “Life Estate” since Life Estate deals with the ownership of the property without the condition that someone else has to be alive?
I think I understand. I struggled with this as well. Pur Autre Vie Relates to a third party's life or the measured life. So the life tenant and the measured life are different. So the life tenant has the ownership until the measuring life dies and if there is no remainderman then it's a reversionary interest at that point. Which if the original Owner dies it passes to the heirs.
I feel like after you said let's call this a life estate... there should have been a dramatic sound...like dun dun dun🤣 Ok am done ✔ 🙄🤣 back to the video
if the life tenant sells their interest to a third party buyer, and the original life holder stays alive, but the life tenant who sold their interest dies, what happens to the property?
Hi There, to anyone reading my message who understands the principle of remainders/reversions and life estates, please would you try and help me understand something? There are two adjoining but separate properties with just one piece of land. The land is vested to only one of the properties via The Settled Land Act. The owner makes herself tenant for life in the vested property/land. When the owner of the vested property/land sells, it is evident her adjoining property is also occupying that vested land. Would/Does the following explain the above or what does it mean: So far as regards the remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate of the Vendor in the hereditaments hereby assured and the title to and further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death the covenants on her part implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall extend only to the acts and defaults of the Vendor and persons now or hereafter claiming through or in trust for her Thank you
Wait, I’m confused. In the visual with the King, it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back the king and if something happens to the king, it goes to the remainderman. But in the currently life visual it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back to the remainderman, then life tenant. Am I missing something?
I don't usually write comments, but this video is illustrated and explained exceptionally well, great work!
Omg bro, bro,bro,bro... I was over here trying my best to learn this, Joe man, perfectly done, thank you so much.
Your videos are great, the visuals really help to understand the topic!!! Awesome
Simple and clear. Keep making these videos. It’s very helpful for dummies like me. It brings forth a lot of clarity. The textbook helps but this helps 10x more
your videos have been sooo helpful all throughout my real estate courses
can't even begin to tell you how helpful this is! Thank you! :D
Perfect ! Thank you. I was order why people do these Life estate but makes sense now! 😆
Wow Joe, great concept!! I truly understand it now. Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Is there a video that shows the big picture showing all the types of freehold and leasehold estates?
Wait, I’m confused. In the visual with the King, it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back the king and if something happens to the king, it goes to the remainderman. But in the currently life visual it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back to the remainderman, then life tenant. Am I missing something?
Same here. I replayed it over & over & I still didn't understand
Same confusion!
same
I agree
Same here!
Thank you I’m a little less confused lol 😅
This video overall was very helpful, however there was some confusion for me with some of the terms (life tenant and life estate holder). They seemed to be used differently in the examples, and varied when I compared it to the Prep Agent e-book section on Life Estate. I noticed some other people were confused by this and I think the e-book is correct and I think some terms got misused here but please correct me if I am wrong. I am still struggling to fully understand life tenant vs. life estate holder. In the first example the "pawns" were labeled as the holders of the life estate. But in the next example the person who is conveying the property is referred to as the life estate holder and the person receiving property is the life tenant who will get the property for the remainder of the original life estate holders life. I think the second example is correct and the first example has the "pawns" mislabeled. In this example they should be called the life tenants and the king is the holder of the life estate. At least this is how I am understanding it after reading the e-book.
I agree with you Ashley.
People have to stop making complex videos like this with a million positive comments and then mislabel things. I've spent more time dissecting his videos and emailing my instructor on who is right, UA-cam guy or course book, than just moving ahead with the course book. The damn cartoon is convincing but so confusing and wasting valuable time.
Great story
Great Video, really clarifies the subject in an easy to understand way. Well done!
Great video Joe! Many people dont understand the ownership side of things and only think about the investment
The concept of life estates has been mind boggling to me; part of it is trying to understand WHY someone would give, receive, have/want a life estate...same with Easements, but that's another video, lol...but your analogy really helped! Sometimes us adults just need a cartoon scenario to help us to understand a concept! Thank you! :)
i agree LIKE WHY WOULD SOMEONE WANT A LEASEHOLD ESTATE LIKE WHY ??? hope I pass my exam soon :( 2nd time taking it
Thank you Joe for this helpful video.I appreciate it ❤️🙏🏻😇🇺🇸
Thank you for your concise and simple explanations!!
Omg I thought I knew the definition until I took my prep exam and realized how confused I was. Thank you!
Omg thank you. I could not understand this chapter in my book. Subscribed!
Thank you this was clear and to the point.
Thank You!!! So helpful !
Glad it was helpful!
This is a hard concept. But I like the example of the king
extremely useful
do you need full ownership of a home to do this as well. If not and there is a loan the home, who pays the mortgage? What happens if one doesn't pay the mortgage?
Wow well explained
Thank you thank you 🙏🏽
In this life estate, who assigns the remainder man? would it be the grantor or the grantee?
great animations
Thanks, Joe! Great and easy to understand content, as always. You're a great teacher!
Thankkkkksss
so is the life estate holder also called the life tenant? the video says the life tenant can sell interest in the estate but when the holder dies rights revert back to the remainderman or the tenant.
The king example is great but its very confusing after that: At 2:28 the term Life Tenant is introduced (A life estate is an interest in an estate that lasts for the life of the life tenant). This is confusing for several reasons, the most basic is because the life tenant appears in the same location as the "king" hence a natural association of the Life Tenant with the King and the Life Estate Holder with the Pawn as it was introduced as such (2:03) but then at 2:37 it appears the terms "Life Tenant and Estate Holder" are being used interchangeably. But then the remainderman appears next to the Life Tenant which makes you re associate the Life Tenant with the King. But the Life Tenant is not the King, the King is the Grantor. A Life Estate lasts until the death of the grantor or until the death of the life tenant ( occupier/conditional owner). I'm not sure why this video doesn't use the term Grantor of the Life Estate ... The basic chain of possession for a Life Estate is: The Grantor > Life Tenant > Death of Life tenant or Death of Grantor > Grantor or Remainderman (Life tenant can sell or lease the property during their life but they can't destroy or will it to anyone).
Hi, I have life use of my home with my sister as the remainderman. Can a lien be placed on the home if I were to lose a civil trial or does the life estate protect against that? (NY state). Ty so much.
Liens on a property I believe are encumbrances
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the pawns had ownership of the property as long as the king stayed alive wouldn’t that be Life Estate Pur Antre Vie and a “Life Estate” since Life Estate deals with the ownership of the property without the condition that someone else has to be alive?
I think I understand. I struggled with this as well.
Pur Autre Vie Relates to a third party's life or the measured life. So the life tenant and the measured life are different.
So the life tenant has the ownership until the measuring life dies and if there is no remainderman then it's a reversionary interest at that point. Which if the original Owner dies it passes to the heirs.
soo who would be the king in a real life situation? would the life state holder be that whos has a mortgage ??
What is a fee simple estate? I’m confused
Bright and early here!
2:13 🎁
I feel like after you said let's call this a life estate... there should have been a dramatic sound...like dun dun dun🤣
Ok am done ✔ 🙄🤣 back to the video
will need more practice on this one, whos on first?
if the life tenant sells their interest to a third party buyer, and the original life holder stays alive, but the life tenant who sold their interest dies, what happens to the property?
Is the life tenant and the grantor, the owner of the estate the same?
Is the Life Estate Tenant and the grantor of the estate the same person?
Hi There, to anyone reading my message who understands the principle of remainders/reversions and life estates, please would you try and help me understand something?
There are two adjoining but separate properties with just one piece of land.
The land is vested to only one of the properties via The Settled Land Act.
The owner makes herself tenant for life in the vested property/land.
When the owner of the vested property/land sells, it is evident her adjoining property is also occupying that vested land.
Would/Does the following explain the above or what does it mean:
So far as regards the remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate of the Vendor in the hereditaments hereby assured and the title to and further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death the covenants on her part implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall extend only to the acts and defaults of the Vendor and persons now or hereafter claiming through or in trust for her
Thank you
comment for the youtube algorithms
This is so confusing😭
Lmao same here
No pride
this is confusing as balls
Bad video.. the analogies are incorrect.
Wait, I’m confused. In the visual with the King, it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back the king and if something happens to the king, it goes to the remainderman. But in the currently life visual it states if something happens to the life holder, the property goes back to the remainderman, then life tenant. Am I missing something?
This is the part I kept getting confused on also...