Present Estates & Future Interests (no RAP) — NextGen Bar practice question

A grantor's deed conveyed a house "to my mother for life, then to my brother." The brother is alive, named by name, and the deed attaches no conditions to his gift — it does not require him to survive the mother or to do anything else. The mother is living in the house. The brother asks a lawyer to describe exactly what he owns now, while his mother is still alive, and whether it is a sure thing or something that could still be taken away from him.

How is the brother's interest best classified?

Option A. Incorrect answer. A contingent remainder, because he cannot possess until the mother dies.
Option B. Incorrect answer. A vested remainder subject to open, because others might later share it.
Option C. Correct answer. An indefeasibly vested remainder, certain to become possessory.Correct
Option D. Incorrect answer. A springing executory interest that divests the grantor.

Why

A remainder is vested when it is given to a living, ascertained person and is subject to no condition precedent. The brother is named and alive, and nothing conditions his gift, so his remainder is vested; because no condition could divest it and the class cannot open, it is indefeasibly vested — certain to become possessory when the mother's life estate ends (C). A confuses possession with vesting: the built-in wait for the prior estate to end is not a "condition" that makes it contingent — only an unascertained taker or a condition precedent does. B is wrong because the gift is to one named individual, not a class that can grow. D misfits the facts: an executory interest cuts short a prior estate or springs from the grantor after a gap, whereas the brother's interest simply follows a life estate to its natural end — the hallmark of a remainder.

Why