Epting v. Mayer
283 S.C. 517, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 615, 323 S.E.2d 797 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will contains a clause that unequivocally devises property in fee simple absolute, a subsequent clause in the same devise that attempts to limit or divest that estate upon a future contingency is deemed repugnant and ineffective.
Facts:
- Mahalie Cummings Epting executed a will containing 'Item V' regarding her real estate.
- Item V devised real estate to her daughters, Eula and Chloe, 'to have and to hold in fee simple absolute.'
- Item V further stated that if both daughters died 'without issue,' the property would then go to her two sons, J. Cornelius and Quincy A. Epting, or their children.
- Mahalie died in 1939 and was survived by her four children: Chloe, Eula, J. Cornelius, and Quincy A.
- Eula Epting later died unmarried and without any children, leaving Chloe as the sole surviving daughter.
- J. Cornelius and Quincy A. also died, leaving a total of eight children (Chloe's nieces and nephews).
- Chloe Epting received an offer to purchase timber from the devised land, which she alleged was infested with insects and losing value.
Procedural Posture:
- Chloe Epting filed an action in the trial court, naming her eight nieces and nephews as defendants.
- The action sought to define the 'extent and nature' of her title to property devised in her mother's will.
- The children of Quincy A. Epting, as defendants, answered by denying Chloe held absolute title and sought an injunction.
- The trial court found that the will granted Chloe a fee simple estate and that the subsequent language of defeasance was repugnant to the grant.
- The children of Quincy A. Epting appealed the trial court's decision to this intermediate appellate 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 clause in a will that grants real estate 'in fee simple absolute' create an absolute ownership interest that cannot be diminished by a subsequent defeasance clause in the same sentence purporting to transfer the property to others if the initial beneficiaries die without issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, Judge
Yes, a clause in a will that grants real estate 'in fee simple absolute' creates an absolute ownership interest that cannot be diminished by a subsequent defeasance clause. The court's primary duty is to ascertain and effectuate the testator's intent. When a testator uses clear and unequivocal language such as 'in fee simple absolute,' it manifests a controlling intention to grant an absolute estate. A subsequent limitation that is inconsistent with or 'repugnant' to this absolute grant must be held ineffective. The court distinguished this case from others where defeasance clauses were upheld, noting that in those cases, the initial devise did not expressly use the controlling language of 'fee simple.' Therefore, the later language regarding the daughters dying 'without issue' does not cut down the fee simple estate already granted to Chloe.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of repugnancy in the construction of wills, giving significant weight to technical terms of absolute conveyance like 'fee simple absolute.' It establishes a strong judicial preference for finding an absolute estate when such language is used, thereby treating subsequent, contradictory limitations as legally ineffective. This precedent provides clarity and certainty for estate planners and beneficiaries, signaling that courts will prioritize the initial, clear grant of an absolute interest over less clear, subsequent conditions. It cautions will drafters against including language that creates an internal conflict between granting an absolute estate and then attempting to subject it to a condition of defeasance.
