Crawford v. Crawford
266 Md. 711, 296 A.2d 388 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will grants a life estate durante viduitate with a special power of appointment to divide property among named beneficiaries, courts will imply a vested remainder interest in those beneficiaries to avoid intestacy if the power is not exercised, treating the power as an imperative power that a court may execute.
Facts:
- Francis A. Crawford (Francis I) died on April 27, 1922, leaving a will executed three days prior.
- Francis I's will bequeathed all his real and personal property to his wife, Jessie Ethel Crawford (Mrs. Crawford), 'to have and enjoy so long as she shall remain my widow,' with 'power to divide said Real and Personal Property equally between my two sons Francis J. Crawford (Francis II) and Francis Albert Crawford Jr. (Francis III)'; the will also stated, 'said Real Estate to be divided as aforesaid and not sold prior to A D 1935.'
- At Francis I's death in 1922, Mrs. Crawford was 36, Francis II was 13, and Francis III was 7; the year 1935 was significant as Francis III would attain age 21 that year.
- In 1940, Francis II married Hollus Field (Hollus) and they moved to one of the farms bequeathed in the will.
- Francis II farmed the property until his death in 1967, survived by Hollus and their son, Francis J. Crawford, III (Francis IV).
- Hollus and Francis IV remained on the farm until Mrs. Crawford gave them notice to vacate in 1969.
- During their occupancy, Francis II and Hollus built a barn, a silo, and a loafing barn, and erected or maintained fencing and gates, at least partly at their own expense, although Mrs. Crawford had paid the taxes for all but one year.
- In March 1971, Mrs. Crawford, believing she had the right under the will, conveyed title to the two farms to a trustee and took back a reconveyance of the farms for the term of her life, with power to sell, lease, or encumber, with the remainder on her death to her son, Francis III.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1971, Jessie Ethel Crawford (Mrs. Crawford) conveyed title to two farms to a trustee and took back a reconveyance for life, with remainder to Francis Albert Crawford, Jr. (Francis III).
- Several months later, Mrs. Crawford filed a bill in equity in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, seeking a declaration that fee simple title to the farms had been vested in her by her husband’s will.
- The case was heard by the chancellor in the Circuit Court for Carroll County on an agreed statement of facts.
- The chancellor concluded that Mrs. Crawford took an estate durante viduitate (a life estate subject to a special limitation) and that, by proper construction of the will, Francis II and Francis III (or their heirs) held vested remainder interests.
- Mrs. Crawford, in her individual capacity and as executrix, and Francis III (appellants) appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Hollus Field and Francis J. Crawford, III (Francis IV) were the appellees.
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 will devising a life estate durante viduitate to a widow, coupled with a special power to divide property between named sons, imply a vested remainder in those sons if the widow fails to exercise the power, or does the property pass through intestacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Singley, J.
Yes, a will devising a life estate durante viduitate to a widow, coupled with a special power to divide property between named sons, implies a vested remainder in those sons, preventing intestacy, even if the widow fails to exercise the power. The Court held that Mrs. Crawford took an estate durante viduitate, a life estate subject to termination by death or remarriage. The general intent of the testator, Francis I, was the controlling consideration, and his primary objects of bounty were his wife and two sons. To avoid intestacy, which is generally disfavored in will construction, a gift over to the permissible appointees (Francis II and Francis III) in default of the exercise of the special power of appointment must be implied. Alternatively, the special power is considered an imperative power that a court will execute if the donee (Mrs. Crawford) fails to do so upon the termination of the prior estate. The Court distinguished prior cases involving general powers of appointment, where property might revert to heirs, stating that this case involved a limited special power. The reference to the year 1935 was intended to prevent partition and sale prior to that year and was now moot. The sons, Francis II and Francis III, were identified by name, confirming that their interests were individual and not a class gift. Therefore, Francis II and Francis III (or Francis II’s heirs) each took an undivided one-half interest by implication, subject to Mrs. Crawford’s power to divide, and Mrs. Crawford’s deeds attempting to vest fee simple title in herself without the remaindermen’s joinder were null and void.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the principles of will construction in Maryland, particularly concerning special powers of appointment and implied gifts in default of appointment. It reinforces the strong judicial policy against intestacy, guiding courts to interpret wills in a manner that fulfills the testator's general intent, even when specific provisions are inexpertly drafted or when a power to appoint is not exercised. The decision also highlights the crucial distinction between general and special powers of appointment, underscoring that the beneficiaries of a special power often have an implied interest that courts will protect.
