Black`s Law Dictionary defines the rule against eternity as «the common law rule that prohibits the granting of an estate unless the interest must be acquired, if any, no later than 21 years (plus a period of pregnancy to cover a posthumous birth) after the death of a living person when the interest was created.»  The basic elements of the rule against eternity originated in England in the 17th century and were «crystallized» into a single rule in the 19th century.  The classic wording of the rule was given in 1886 by the American jurist John Chipman Gray: The rule applies to enforceable interest and conditional remainders. Interests that the grantor retains (such as reversions and rights of return) are exempt from the rule, since the grantor retains the interest anyway, there is no reason why it cannot control it (it could have controlled it without giving it anyway). (a) Unless extended by paragraph (b) of this section of the Code, this section applies to a pure right of ownership or power of appointment created on or after July 1, 2018. It is only for the purposes of this section of the Code that an unearned property right or power of appointment created by the exercise of an appointing power is created if the power is exercised irrevocably or if a revocable exercise becomes irrevocable. (b) With respect to an unearned property right or power of appointment that existed prior to 1. Created in July 2018 and violating that state`s rule against eternity, since that rule existed before July 1, 2018, a court may, at the request of an interested party, exercise its equitable power to amend the injunction in a manner that is closest to the assignor`s manifested distribution plan and that is within the limits of the rule. against the eternities that apply when the unearned patrimonial interest or the power of appointment has been created. A «rest» is what remains of an estate.
For example, the rule does not apply to holdings of the grantor itself. For example, granting «For A as long as the alcohol is not sold on the premises, then to B» would violate the rule with respect to B. However, transport to B would be cancelled, leaving «To A, as long as no alcohol is sold on the premises». This would create a royalty that can be easily determined in A, with the possibility of an inverter in the grantor (or the grantor`s heirs). The subsidy to B would be zero because it is possible that alcohol could be sold on the site more than 21 years after the death of A, B and the grantor. However, as the rule does not apply to dealers, the possibility of a reverter at the licensor (or his heirs) would be valid. The rule against eternity serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing homeowners to bind long-term contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, as few would be willing to buy a property that has had unresolved problems with their property. Second, judges often feared that the dead would unduly restrict the ownership and use of property by those who are still alive. For this reason, the rule only allows testators (willaries) to put contingencies on the property of the next generation plus 21 years. Finally, the anti-eternity rule was sometimes used to prevent very large, perhaps aristocratic, possessions from being kept in a family for more than one or two generations at a time.
 The Rule Against Eternity plays an important role in the 1981 film Body Heat. He also played a subplot in the 2011 film The Descendants. The rule against eternity is closely related to another doctrine of the Common Law of Property, the rule against unreasonable restrictions on alienation. The purpose of the rule in Georgia was explained in Shiver v. Benton, 251 Ga. 284 (1983). The court stated: «The rule is in O.C.G.A. § 44-6-1 (Code Ann. § 85 to 707). The rule limits the exercise of future interests; It also seeks to protect the free sale of goods, although the restriction may be more indirect than a mere restriction on alienation, which is contrary to public policy, even if it is limited in time.
In Cook v. Horn, 214 Ga. 289, 293 (104 SE2d 461) (1958), this court stated that one of the objectives of the rule «is to prevent the connection of property for an unreasonable period of time and to prohibit an unreasonable restriction on the sale of property». Although the rule is only given in time, there are many underlying goals. These include «the use of wealth, the development of the land by its present beneficial owners, and the certainty that society is controlled by the living, not by the grave.» St. Regis Paper Co.c. Brown, 247 Ga. 361, 362 (276 SE2d 24) (1981).
The rule of eternity applies only to future contingent successions and does not apply to successions already acquired. Therefore, the rule has no effect on acquired residues or reversions. It can also be noted that the provisions of a will create a mere burden instead of a predetermined condition that the estate is acquired and not contingent and is therefore not affected by the rule against eternity. Rule against eternity: A rule that provides that certain future interest, if any, must be transferred within 21 years of the death of a life at the time the interest is created. The rule against eternity applies only in cases where the conditions of a document purporting to create an estate should or may postpone the acquisition of the estate beyond the period of a lifetime or a lifetime and 21 years thereafter. The rule against eternity is one of the most difficult questions that law students face.  It is notoriously difficult to apply it correctly: in 1961, the California Supreme Court ruled that it was not an abuse of rights for an attorney to write a will that inadvertently violated the rule.  In the United States, the common law rule has been abolished by law in Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.  If a transaction to be insured shows interest on the transferred immovable property acquired more than 21 years after the date of execution of the act, the possible application of the rule is examined. The rule never applies to conditions imposed on a transfer to a charity that, in the event of a breach, would transfer ownership to another charity. For example, a promotion «to the Red Cross as long as it operates an office on the property, but if it does not, then to the World Wildlife Fund» would be valid under the rule, since both parties are charities. Even if the fund`s interest rates cannot be acquired for hundreds of years, the transfer would remain valid.
However, the exception does not apply if the transfer is not made from one charity to another charity in the event of a breach of the condition. Therefore, an invention «to John Smith, as long as no one runs a liquor store on the premises, but if someone runs a liquor store on the premises, then to the Roman Catholic Church» would violate the rule. The exception would not apply to john Smith`s transfer to the Roman Catholic Church because John Smith is not a charity. Even if the initial transfer «to John Smith and his heirs took as long as John Smith or his heirs do not use the premises to sell alcohol, but if he does, then to the Red Cross,» it would violate the rule, as it could take more than 21 years for interests in the Red Cross to be transferred, and therefore their interest is null and void. .