Ogle owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Five years ago, he executed and delivered to Lilly an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed that conveyed Greenacre to Lilly "for and during the term of her natural life." No other estate or interest or person taking an interest was mentioned. Lilly took possession of Greenacre and has remained in possession. Fifteen months ago, Ogle died, leaving a will that has been duly admitted to probate. The will, inter alia, had the following provision: "I devise Greenacre to Mina for her natural life and from and after Mina's death to Rex, his heirs and assigns, forever." Administration of Ogle's estate has been completed. Mina claims the immediate right to possession of Greenacre. Rex also asserts a right to immediate possession. In an appropriate lawsuit to which Lilly, Mina, and Rex are parties, who should be adjudged to have the right to immediate possession? 
Lilly, because no subsequent act of Ogle would affect her life estate.  Mina, because Ogle's will was the final and definitive expression of his intent.  Mina, because Lilly's estate terminated with the death of Ogle.  Rex, because Lilly's estate terminated with Ogle's death and all that Ogle had was the right to transfer his reversion in fee simple. 
Question: Ogle owned Greenacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. Five years ago, he executed and delivered to Lilly an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed that conveyed Greenacre to Lilly "for and during the term of her natural life." No other estate or interest or person taking an interest was mentioned. Lilly took possession of Greenacre and has remained in possession. Fifteen months ago, Ogle died, leaving a will that has been duly admitted to probate. The will, inter alia, had the following provision: "I devise Greenacre to Mina for her natural life and from and after Mina's death to Rex, his heirs and assigns, forever." Administration of Ogle's estate has been completed. Mina claims the immediate right to possession of Greenacre. Rex also asserts a right to immediate possession. In an appropriate lawsuit to which Lilly, Mina, and Rex are parties, who should be adjudged to have the right to immediate possession? 
A. Lilly, because no subsequent act of Ogle would affect her life estate. 
B. Mina, because Ogle's will was the final and definitive expression of his intent. 
C. Mina, because Lilly's estate terminated with the death of Ogle. 
D. Rex, because Lilly's estate terminated with Ogle's death and all that Ogle had was the right to transfer his reversion in fee simple. 
Answer: