Braswell v. Braswell
195 Va. 971, 1954 Va. LEXIS 174, 81 S.E.2d 560 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inter vivos conveyance of land for life, with a limitation to the grantor's own heirs, is presumed to create a reversionary interest in the grantor rather than a remainder in the heirs. This presumption, arising from the common law doctrine of worthier title, can be rebutted by a clear expression of the grantor's contrary intent within the instrument.
Facts:
- On May 2, 1903, James J. Braswell conveyed a 37-acre tract of land to his son, Nathaniel T. Braswell.
- The deed granted the land to Nathaniel "during his natural life and to his lawful heirs at his death, and if said Nathaniel T. Braswell should die leaving no lawful heir from his body, then the land herein conveyed shall revert back to the said James J. Braswell or to his lawful heirs."
- In 1932, the grantor, James J. Braswell, died intestate, leaving his three sons—Nathaniel, S. J. Braswell, and W. H. Braswell—as his sole heirs.
- In 1952, the life tenant, Nathaniel T. Braswell, died without any children.
- Nathaniel's will devised all his real property to his nephew, Charles Madison Braswell.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Madison Braswell filed a bill for partition against S. J. and W. H. Braswell in the trial court.
- The trial court held that Charles Madison Braswell owned a one-third undivided interest in the land.
- S. J. Braswell and W. H. Braswell appealed the trial court's decision.
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 deed that grants a life estate and provides that if the life tenant dies without issue the land shall "revert back" to the grantor "or to his lawful heirs" create a contingent remainder in the grantor's heirs or a reversion in the grantor?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No, the deed creates a reversion in the grantor. Under the common law rule against a remainder to the grantor's heirs, also known as the doctrine of worthier title, a limitation to a grantor's own heirs is treated as a reservation of a reversion in the grantor. While historically a rigid rule of law, the modern trend, which the court adopts, treats it as a rule of construction that creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of a reversion. To overcome this presumption, the instrument must show a clear intent by the grantor to create a remainder in his heirs as purchasers. Here, the language in the deed does not rebut the presumption. The word "then" merely fixes the time at which the property interest would shift, not the time for identifying the heirs, and the word "revert" reinforces the idea that the grantor intended for the property to return to his estate. Therefore, James J. Braswell retained a reversion, which passed by intestacy to his three sons upon his death. Nathaniel's one-third interest in that reversion was validly devised to Charles Madison Braswell.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the status of the doctrine of worthier title in Virginia as a rule of construction rather than an absolute rule of law, aligning the state with the modern trend in property law. By establishing a strong presumption in favor of a reversion, the court places a significant burden on drafters to use explicit language if they intend to create a remainder in a grantor's heirs. The ruling provides clarity for future interpretations of similar conveyances and emphasizes that standard words like "then" are insufficient to overcome the presumption, thereby impacting estate planning and title examination.
