Arthur's estate plan included a revocable trust established 35 years ago with ABC Bank as trustee. The principal asset of the trust has always been Blackacre, a very profitable, debt-free office building. The trust instrument instructs the trustee to pay the net income to Arthur for life, and, after the death of Arthur, to pay the net income to his wife, Alice, for life; and, after her death, "to distribute the net trust estate as she may appoint by will, or in default of her exercise of this power of appointment, to my son (her stepson), Charles." Arthur died 30 years ago survived by Alice and Charles. Arthur had not revoked or amended the trust agreement. A few years after Arthur's death, Alice remarried; she then had a child, Marie; was widowed for a second time; and, last year, died. Her will contained only one dispositive provision: "I give my entire estate to my daughter, Marie, and I intentionally make no provision for my stepson, Charles." Marie is now 22 years old. The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute in the jurisdiction. There are no other applicable statutes. Charles brought an appropriate action against Marie to determine who was entitled to the net trust estate and thus to Blackacre. If the court rules for Marie, it will be because 
Alice's life estate and general power of appointment merge into complete ownership in Alice. the Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to general powers of appointment. the jurisdiction deems "entire estate" to be a reference to Blackacre or to Alice's general power of appointment.  Alice intended that Charles should not benefit by reason of her death.
Question: Arthur's estate plan included a revocable trust established 35 years ago with ABC Bank as trustee. The principal asset of the trust has always been Blackacre, a very profitable, debt-free office building. The trust instrument instructs the trustee to pay the net income to Arthur for life, and, after the death of Arthur, to pay the net income to his wife, Alice, for life; and, after her death, "to distribute the net trust estate as she may appoint by will, or in default of her exercise of this power of appointment, to my son (her stepson), Charles." Arthur died 30 years ago survived by Alice and Charles. Arthur had not revoked or amended the trust agreement. A few years after Arthur's death, Alice remarried; she then had a child, Marie; was widowed for a second time; and, last year, died. Her will contained only one dispositive provision: "I give my entire estate to my daughter, Marie, and I intentionally make no provision for my stepson, Charles." Marie is now 22 years old. The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute in the jurisdiction. There are no other applicable statutes. Charles brought an appropriate action against Marie to determine who was entitled to the net trust estate and thus to Blackacre. If the court rules for Marie, it will be because 
A. Alice's life estate and general power of appointment merge into complete ownership in Alice.
B. the Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to general powers of appointment.
C. the jurisdiction deems "entire estate" to be a reference to Blackacre or to Alice's general power of appointment. 
D. Alice intended that Charles should not benefit by reason of her death.
Answer: