Collins v. Held
1977 Ind. App. LEXIS 1017, 174 Ind. App. 584, 369 N.E.2d 641 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will devises a remainder interest to a class of beneficiaries conditioned on their being 'living at the time of' the life tenant's death, it creates a contingent remainder. If a beneficiary predeceases the life tenant, their interest is extinguished and does not pass to their heirs.
Facts:
- In 1936, John T. Devening died, leaving a will that granted his wife, Jessie, a life estate in his real estate.
- The will stipulated that upon Jessie's death, Devening's two daughters, Connie Allender and Gladys Held, would receive life estates in the property.
- The will further specified that upon the death of either daughter, her share would pass in fee simple to 'the children of such deceased daughter living at the time of her death.'
- Connie Allender had one son, Malbrook Allender, who died in 1944, predeceasing his mother Connie.
- Gladys Held had nine children, one of whom, Marjorie Held Grime, died in 1957, predeceasing her mother Gladys.
- In 1947, Connie Allender conveyed her life estate interest to her sister, Gladys Held, by quitclaim deed.
- Devening's widow, Jessie, died in 1960, and Gladys Held died in 1973. Connie Allender was still alive when this action commenced.
Procedural Posture:
- The children of Gladys Held sued Blanche Collins (widow of deceased grandchild Malbrook Allender) and others in the Shelby Circuit Court (a trial court) to construe John T. Devening's will.
- The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the remainder interests should be divided among all ten original grandchildren or their estates.
- The defendant, Blanche Collins, filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that the remainder interests were vested and that the estates of the two deceased grandchildren (Malbrook and Marjorie) were entitled to one-tenth shares each.
- Defendant Blanche Collins appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
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 clause in a will conditioning a remainder interest on the beneficiary being 'living at the time of' the life tenant's death create a contingent remainder that fails if the beneficiary predeceases the life tenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Lybrook, J.
Yes. A will provision that explicitly conditions a remainder interest on the beneficiary surviving the life tenant creates a contingent remainder that fails if the condition is not met. The governing factor in construing a will is the testator's expressed intent. Here, the testator's specific language, 'living at the time of her death,' controls the more general language devising the property to his grandchildren. This phrase unambiguously creates a condition of survivorship. Because Malbrook Allender and Marjorie Grime failed to survive their respective mothers (the life tenants), the condition was not met, and their interests were extinguished. While the law disfavors contingent remainders, courts must uphold them when a testator uses clear and unambiguous language to create one, as Devening did here.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the supremacy of the testator's unambiguous intent in will construction, even when it creates a disfavored property interest like a contingent remainder. It establishes that specific conditional language requiring survivorship will override general grants to a class of beneficiaries. The decision serves as a crucial precedent in Indiana for interpreting survivorship clauses, clarifying that such language creates a true condition precedent to vesting. Furthermore, the court modernized Indiana law by adopting the Restatement of Property's position on the descendability of an estate 'pur autre vie,' holding that it passes to the deceased tenant's personal representative rather than being extinguished under older common law rules.
Unlock the full brief for Collins v. Held