Abrams v. Templeton
1995 S.C. App. LEXIS 145, 465 S.E.2d 117, 320 S.C. 325 (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 in a pre-1987 will that violates the common law rule against perpetuities by inserting a savings clause that both validates the interest and most closely preserves the transferor's overall plan of distribution.
Facts:
- In 1914, Mary Ann Taylor Ramage executed her will.
- The will devised a 160-acre tract of land to her husband for life, then to her son Albert for life, then to Albert's children for their lives, with the remainder to be divided among their children (Ramage's great-grandchildren).
- The will also devised a separate tract of approximately 130 acres to the children of her predeceased daughter, Alma Templeton.
- Ramage died in 1915.
- After Ramage's death, her son Albert had nine children.
- Five of Albert's nine children eventually had children of their own.
- The remaining four of Albert's children died without ever having children.
Procedural Posture:
- An action was brought in a South Carolina trial court to construe the 1914 will of Mary Ann Taylor Ramage.
- The trial judge found that a provision devising property to the testator's great-grandchildren violated the common law rule against perpetuities.
- Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B), the trial judge reformed the will by inserting a savings clause to validate the gift.
- The trial judge also ruled that the shares of grandchildren who died childless would augment the shares of those who had children.
- The testator's heirs-at-law from the Templeton branch of the family, as Appellants, appealed the trial judge's order 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 S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) authorize a court to reform a will that violates the rule against perpetuities by inserting language that not only validates the intended gift but also directs the disposition of related interests that would otherwise fail, in order to preserve the testator's overall distributive plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Hearn, Judge
Yes. S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) mandates that a court reform a will violating the rule against perpetuities to preserve the testator's intent. The court found that the original gift to the great-grandchildren violated the common law rule against perpetuities because the class of beneficiaries could have remained open beyond the perpetuity period. The statute was enacted to prevent the harsh common law result of forfeiture and requires the court to insert a savings clause that effectuates the testator's plan. The testator's clear intent was to keep this specific tract of land within her son Albert's family branch. The trial court's initial reformation fixed the perpetuities violation but failed to dispose of the interests of Albert's children who died childless. To fully preserve the testator's intent and prevent these interests from passing through intestacy to all heirs (including the Templeton branch), this court further modifies the will to explicitly state that the shares of any of Albert's children who died childless are to be divided among the children of those who had issue.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the modern statutory trend of mitigating the harshness of the common law Rule Against Perpetuities through judicial reformation. It establishes that the mandate to reform is not merely a mechanical fix to the perpetuities violation itself, but a broader directive to preserve the testator's entire distributive scheme. The court's willingness to add a gift-over provision for the childless life tenants shows that reformation can be used proactively to fill gaps created by the original flawed conveyance, thereby preventing partial intestacy and ensuring the property remains with the intended beneficiaries. This reinforces the principle that effectuating testator intent is paramount, even if it requires significant judicial modification of the will's original language.
Unlock the full brief for Abrams v. Templeton