Edwards v. Bradley
227 Va. 224, 315 S.E.2d 196 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will devises property with a total restraint on alienation, which would be void if attached to a fee simple estate but valid if attached to a life estate, courts will construe the devise as a life estate if necessary to effectuate the testator's clear intent to protect the property.
Facts:
- In 1957, Viva Parker Lilliston executed a will devising a farm to her daughter, Margaret Lilliston Edwards (later Jones).
- The will stipulated that if Margaret attempted to sell or encumber the farm, or if her creditors tried to seize it, her interest would terminate and the farm would immediately vest in her six named children in fee simple.
- When the will was drafted, Lilliston was aware that Margaret was experiencing financial difficulties.
- The will, drafted by an experienced attorney, used the term 'fee simple' in other provisions but not in the devise to Margaret.
- Lilliston died in 1969.
- In 1979, Margaret Jones asked her children to consent to the sale of the farm; one daughter, Beverly Bradley, refused.
- Shortly thereafter, Margaret Jones executed her own will, directing the farm be sold and leaving Beverly Bradley only $1.00.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Bradley filed a bill of complaint in the trial court against the executors of the estate of Margaret L. Jones and her five siblings (collectively, Edwards).
- Bradley sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the farm and a determination of her interest in the property.
- After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the Lilliston will devised a life estate to Margaret Jones with the remainder in fee simple to her six children.
- Edwards, as the defendants, appealed the trial court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 devise of real property that prohibits the devisee from selling or encumbering it, and provides that the property passes to her children if she attempts to do so, create a life estate by implication rather than a fee simple estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Cochran, J.
Yes. A devise that includes a total restraint on alienation, which is legally inconsistent with a fee simple estate but consistent with a life estate, will be interpreted as creating a life estate to uphold the testator's clear intent. The court's primary duty is to effectuate the testator's intent if it is not contrary to established law. Here, Lilliston's intent was clearly to provide for her daughter Margaret while protecting the farm from Margaret's creditors for the ultimate benefit of the grandchildren. A total restraint on alienation is void as repugnant to a fee simple estate, but it is a valid condition on a life estate. Interpreting the devise as a fee simple would invalidate the protective conditions, thereby defeating Lilliston's intent. Therefore, the only way to uphold her intent is to construe the devise as a life estate with a remainder to the children. The draftsman's deliberate avoidance of the term 'fee simple' in this specific devise, while using it elsewhere, further supports the conclusion that a lesser estate was intended.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the primacy of testator's intent in will construction, showing that courts will imply a type of estate (a life estate) not explicitly named in order to validate the will's conditions and achieve the testator's overall purpose. It serves as a key precedent for resolving ambiguities where a direct interpretation of the estate granted would conflict with and nullify other explicit conditions in the devise. The case reinforces the fundamental property law distinction between the permissible restraints on a life estate versus the impermissible restraints on a fee simple, guiding how such provisions are drafted and interpreted.
Unlock the full brief for Edwards v. Bradley