Matter of Estate of Crowl

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING

OPALA, Justice.

Appellants continue to press for invalidation of Crowl’s option as violative of the rule against perpetuities.1 They apparently view that option as “open-ended”2 and seem to suggest a possibility that the interest it created will neither vest nor fail within the rule’s limit.3 Their argument overlooks Oklahoma’s statutory commitment to constructional preference for validity and appears utterly to ignore the provisions of 60 O.S.1981 §§ 75 and 77,4 both enacted in 1971. The cited sections plainly require that the contested interest be accorded a…