Estate of Campbell
82 P.2d 22, 28 Cal. App. 2d 102, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 491 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A future interest is void at its creation if, by any possibility, it may not vest within the statutorily prescribed period for the suspension of the absolute power of alienation.
Facts:
- Wesley S. Campbell died on October 4, 1935, leaving a will.
- The will's residuary clause bequeathed the remainder of his estate to the four chair officers of San Diego Lodge No. 168, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.
- The will specified that the beneficiaries would be the individuals holding these offices at the time the estate was distributed.
- The will expressed an expectation, but not a requirement, that the officers would use the funds for charitable purposes.
- The four chair officer positions were filled through annual elections.
- The individuals holding the designated offices at the time of the probate hearing were not the same people who held those offices when Campbell died.
Procedural Posture:
- Wesley S. Campbell's will was admitted to probate in the trial court.
- During the probate proceedings, a final account and petition for distribution were filed.
- The decedent's heirs at law filed objections to the petition for distribution, challenging the validity of the residuary clause.
- The probate court (the court of first instance) found the residuary clause to be invalid and void.
- The court ordered that the residue of the estate be distributed to the decedent's heirs at law.
- The four individuals holding the designated Elks Lodge offices at the time of the hearing appealed the decree of distribution to the Court of Appeal.
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 provision in a will that bequeaths property to individuals holding specific offices at the time of the estate's distribution violate California's statutory rule against suspension of the absolute power of alienation if it is possible that distribution could occur more than 25 years after the testator's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Barnard, P. J.
Yes. A future interest is void if, at the time of its creation, there exists any possibility that the interest may not vest within the period prescribed by the rule against suspension of alienation. The beneficiaries under Campbell's will could not be ascertained until the distribution of the estate, an event which is not certain to occur within 25 years of the testator's death. California's statute (Civil Code § 716) voids any future interest which 'by any possibility' may suspend alienation beyond the period. The court must consider all possibilities, not just probabilities. Potential delays such as protracted litigation, neglect in initiating probate, or other unforeseen circumstances create a possibility that distribution could be postponed beyond the 25-year limit. Therefore, the bequest is void from its creation.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the strict and unforgiving application of the rule against perpetuities and related statutory rules against the suspension of alienation. The court's refusal to consider probabilities over remote possibilities solidifies the 'what-might-happen' approach, where the validity of an interest is judged based on all conceivable scenarios at the time of its creation, not what actually transpires. This decision serves as a significant warning to estate planners to avoid using uncertain administrative contingencies, like the 'distribution of an estate,' as the event for vesting. The ruling reinforces that certainty of vesting within the prescribed period is paramount, and any drafting ambiguity will be resolved by invalidating the interest.
