Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 27, § 501 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 005 : PERPETUITIES

(Cite as: 27 V.S.A. § 501)

§ 501. Reformation of interests violating rule against perpetuities

Any interest in real or personal property which would violate the rule against perpetuities shall be reformed, within the limits of that rule, to approximate most closely the intention of the creator of the interest. In determining whether an interest would violate said rule and in reforming an interest the period of perpetuities shall be measured by actual rather than possible events.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1976–2001 · leading case: Vaillancourt v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. of Vermont, Inc., 425 A.2d 92 (Vt. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vaillancourt v. Med. Ctr. Hosp. of Vermont, Inc., 425 A.2d 92 (Vt. 1980). “Rights of an unborn child are no stranger to our law, even though the precise question presented is one of first impression and we are without statutory history helpful to decision. The intestate rights of a posthumous child are recognized in 14 V.”

Colby v. Colby, 596 A.2d 901 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 3× “The trial court was correct that restraints on alienation are not favored, and that the reasonableness of a restraint turns on a variety of factors.”

Ransom v. Bebernitz, 782 A.2d 1155 (Vt. 2001). “1 27 V.S.A.§ 501 reads: Any interest in real or personal property which would violate the rule against perpetuities shall be reformed, within the limits of that rule, to approximate most closely the intention of the creator of the interest.”

Burgess v. Howe, 359 A.2d 652 (Vt. 1976). · cites it 2× “The first rejected any claim that a violation of the rule against perpetuities was involved, in view of 27 V.S.A. § 501. The second conclusion determined that the equities required the setting aside of the deed for failure to comply with the right of first refusal accorded…”

Hagemann v. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 237 S.E.2d 388 (Va. 1977). “A statute embodying the “wait and see” doctrine has been adopted in England, Perpetuities and Accumulations Act, 1964, c.”

Pound v. Shorter, 377 S.E.2d 854 (Ga. 1989). “1982); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 27, § 501 (1975); Wash.”

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.