Doctor v. Hughes
122 N.E. 221 (1919) (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conveyance of property in trust for the life of the grantor, with a direction to convey to the grantor's heirs upon death, is presumed to create a reversion in the grantor, not a remainder in the heirs. To transform what would be a reversion into a remainder, the grantor's intention to do so must be clearly expressed.
Facts:
- In January 1899, James J. Hanigan conveyed a house and lot to a trustee.
- The trust directed the trustee to pay Hanigan an annual sum for life and, upon Hanigan's death, to convey the property to Hanigan's 'heirs at law'.
- The trust also allowed the trustee, at their discretion, to reconvey the property to Hanigan at any time, which would terminate the trust.
- While Hanigan was still alive, one of his two daughters, Mrs. Hughes, executed a deed conveying all her interest in the property to her husband, Mr. Hughes.
- The plaintiffs later obtained a money judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Hughes and sought to satisfy it by claiming Mr. Hughes's purported interest in the trust property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, as judgment creditors, initiated an action in the New York trial court (Special Term) to enforce their judgment against an alleged property interest held by the debtor, Mr. Hughes.
- The trial court found for the plaintiffs, holding that Mr. Hughes possessed a remainder interest in the property that was subject to his creditors' claims.
- The defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, appealed to the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the grantor, Hanigan, did not create a remainder, and thus the Hugheses had no property interest for creditors to seize.
- The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 conveyance in trust that directs the trustee to convey the property to the grantor's own 'heirs at law' upon the grantor's death create a remainder interest in the heirs that can be alienated or reached by creditors while the grantor is still alive?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
No, such a conveyance does not create a remainder interest in the heirs but instead leaves a reversionary interest in the grantor. Under the common law doctrine of worthier title, a grant to one's own heirs is treated as a reversion to the grantor, meaning the heirs receive no present property interest, only an expectancy. The court reasoned that this ancient doctrine persists not as an absolute rule of property, but as a rule of construction. Therefore, to transform what would ordinarily be a reversion into a remainder, the grantor's intention must be clearly expressed in the conveying instrument. Here, Hanigan did not clearly express an intent to create an indefeasible remainder in his heirs; the language used was a 'superfluous expression of a duty imposed by law.' Since Mrs. Hughes had only an expectancy (spes successionis) and not a property estate, her conveyance to her husband was ineffective, and their creditors have no interest to seize.
Analysis:
This case revitalized the doctrine of worthier title, transforming it from a rigid common-law rule of property into a modern rule of construction. By doing so, the court established a strong presumption that a grantor intends to retain a reversion when making a grant to their own heirs. This decision requires future grantors who wish to create a true remainder in their heirs to use exceptionally clear and unambiguous language to overcome this presumption. The ruling significantly impacts estate planning and creditors' rights, as it limits the ability of creditors to attach the interests of presumptive heirs while the grantor is still alive.
Unlock the full brief for Doctor v. Hughes