NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-15 (2026)

Statutory rule against perpetuities

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 41 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A nonvested property interest is invalid unless:

(1) When the interest is created, it is certain to vest or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive; or

(2) The interest either vests or terminates within 90 years after its creation.

(b) A general power of appointment not presently exercisable because of a condition precedent is invalid unless:

(1) When the power is created, the condition precedent is certain to be satisfied or become impossible to satisfy no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive; or

(2) The condition precedent either is satisfied or becomes impossible to satisfy within 90 years after its creation.

(1) When the power is created, it is certain to be irrevocably exercised or otherwise to terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive; or

(2) The power is irrevocably exercised or otherwise terminates within 90 years after its creation.

(d) In determining whether a nonvested property interest or a power of appointment is valid under subdivision (a)(1), (b)(1), or (c)(1) of this section, the possibility that a child will be born to an individual after the individual's death is disregarded.

(e) If, in measuring a period from the creation of a property arrangement, language in a governing instrument:

(1) Seeks to disallow the vesting or termination of any interest beyond,

(2) Seeks to postpone the vesting or termination of any interest until, or

(3) Seeks to operate in effect in any similar fashion upon, the later of (i) the expiration of a period of time not exceeding 21 years after the death of the survivor of specified lives in being at the creation of the property arrangement or (ii) the expiration of a period of time that exceeds or might exceed 21 years after the death of the survivor of lives in being at the creation of the property arrangement, that language is inoperative to the extent it produces a period of time that exceeds 21 years after the death of the survivor of the specified lives. (1995, c. 190, s. 1; 2007-390, s. 2; 2021-85, s. 3(a).)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2012 · leading case: New Bar P'ship v. Martin, 729 S.E.2d 675 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

New Bar P'ship v. Martin, 729 S.E.2d 675 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Resolution of this aspect of the appeal requires consideration of two areas of our State’s jurisprudence: (1) our case law on rights of first refusal, also known as preemptive rights; and (2) the effect of the *311 1995 enactment of the Uniform Statutory Rule Against…”

Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 860 A.2d 886 (Md. 2004). “…to -1007; NebRev.Stat §§ 76-2001 to -2008; NevRev.Stat. §§ 111. 103 — .1039; N.M.StatAnn §§ 45-2-901 to -906; N.C.GenStat §§ 41-15 to -22; N.D.Cent.Code §§ 47-02-27.1 to .5; Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 105-950 to-.975; S.C.Code Ann §§ 27-6-10 to-80; Tenn Code Ann §§ 66-1-201…”

Rich, Rich & Nance v. Carolina Constr. Corp., 558 S.E.2d 77 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 41-15 (1999); see generally N.”

Brown Bros. Harriman Trust Co. v. Benson, 688 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 41-15 (2007). Thus, instead of finding a future interest invalid at the time of its creation if it is not certain to vest or terminate within the prescribed period, as was required under the common law rule, a future interest is invalid under the USRAP only…”

Brown Bros. Harriman Trust Co. v. Benson, 688 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 41-15 (2007). Thus, instead of finding a future interest invalid at the time of its creation if it is not certain to vest or terminate within the prescribed period, as was required under the common law rule, a future interest is invalid under the USRAP only if…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.