a. Facts-
P did NOT receive a house in fee simple, instead life estate, because the will
contained language that said P can “live in the house, but cannot sell it”. The
remainder interest went to the decedent’s heirs, D. P sued D to gin fee simple
absolute estate of the house.
b. Procedural
History- Trial Ct held that will conveyed life estate, Ct of appeals affirmed.
Sup Ct reversed and remanded.
c. Issue-
Whether a restriction on sale of a house contained in a will constitutes a fee
simple absolute estate
i.
How do you interpret a document like
this?
d. Holding-
The limitation in the will was NOT enough evidence to show that decedent’s
intent was to transfer a life estate
i.
Dissent- Because of the restriction, the
will on a whole shows that decedent’s intent was to transfer a life estate,
such that decedent’s heirs will own the house after Π dies (after Π’s life
estate runs up)
e. Rule-
Rules of construction of an ambiguous will favors a conveyance of fee simple
absolute
i.
“If the expression in the will is
doubtful, the doubt is resolved against the limitation and in favor of the
absolute estate”
f. Rationale-
i.
Ct said that we should consider this to
be fee simple, and NOT a life estate b/c testator did NOT name who the remainder
interest is.
1. If
it was a life estate, testator would have named remainders
ii.
Ct says that “to live in” are characterized
as words of motivation, they are explaining the purpose
1. They’re
indicative in purpose
iii.
“Not to be sold”
1. Cts
really DON’T like restraints on alienation (social policy) in fee simples
No comments:
Post a Comment