Susan has persuasively argued for adoption of a method that would look at the various chains of events—the resolving sequences—thus to separate those that fail from those that pass. We differ in only one important respect. In some instances she would use a life or portion of a life that is extraneous to the vesting reached in a particular sequence. I would not. In doing so, she in effect adopts Professor Dukeminier's "affecting lives" approach. To put this in my terms, she uses any life or portion of a life that is pertinent to vesting of any sequence within the interest, not confining herself to those lives that are pertinent to the sequence under scrutiny. Further, she will use that extraneous life even though it is not adequate to defend the other sequence. She also would use a life that is adequate to defend a sequence that resolves the remainder that is alternate to the remainder being tested.
Robert L. Fletcher,
Perpetuities: A Father's Reply,
65 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol65/iss2/9