Abrams v. Templeton
320 S.C. 325, 1995 S.C. App. LEXIS 145, 465 S.E.2d 117 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B), a court must reform a disposition created before 1987 that violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities by inserting a savings clause that most closely preserves the transferor's intent and brings the disposition within the rule's limits.
Facts:
- In 1914, Mary Ann Taylor Ramage executed a will and died in 1915.
- The will devised a 160-acre tract of land to her son Albert for life, then to Albert's children for their lives.
- Upon the death of Albert's children, the will directed that their interests be divided among their own children (the testator's great-grandchildren).
- This final gift to the testator's great-grandchildren was a class gift that could potentially vest outside the time limit of the Rule Against Perpetuities.
- The testator devised a separate, similarly sized tract of land to the descendants of her other child, Alma Templeton.
- Albert eventually had nine children, four of whom died without having any children of their own.
Procedural Posture:
- A judicial proceeding was commenced in a South Carolina trial court to interpret Mary Ann Taylor Ramage's 1914 will.
- The trial court found that a provision creating a gift to the testator's great-grandchildren violated the common law Rule Against Perpetuities.
- Acting under a state statute, the trial judge reformed the provision by inserting a savings clause to make it valid.
- The trial judge further ordered that the property shares of grandchildren who died childless would pass to the descendants of the grandchildren who had children.
- Heirs from the Templeton branch of the family, as Appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court, under S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B), have the authority to reform a will provision that violates the common law Rule Against Perpetuities by inserting a savings clause to validate the gift, rather than declaring it void and allowing the property to pass through intestacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Hearn, Judge
Yes. A court is statutorily mandated to reform a disposition that violates the Rule Against Perpetuities to preserve the testator's intent, rather than voiding the gift. The plain language of S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) directs a court to reform such a disposition by inserting a savings clause. The purpose of this statute is to avoid the harsh and remorseless application of the common law rule, which would result in forfeiture. The law abhors intestacy and presumes the validity of a will. Based on the will's structure, which provided separate and roughly equal tracts of land to each branch of her family, the testator's clear intent was to keep the subject property within her son Albert's family line. Voiding the gift would defeat this intent. Therefore, the court must reconstruct the will not only to cure the perpetuities violation but also to direct the disposition of the shares of grandchildren who died childless, ensuring the property remains with Albert's descendants as intended.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the modern legislative and judicial trend of moving away from the rigid, unforgiving application of the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. It affirms that reformation statutes like S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) are not merely permissive but mandatory, requiring courts to save a gift rather than void it. The decision prioritizes effectuating the testator's probable intent over enforcing ancient, technical property rules, thereby establishing a strong precedent for judicial intervention to correct drafting errors and prevent unintended forfeitures.
Unlock the full brief for Abrams v. Templeton