Folsom v. Rowell
640 S.E.2d 5 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A remainder interest that is initially contingent upon a condition precedent, such as providing care, becomes vested once the condition is met. This vested interest is inheritable and is not subject to a condition of survivorship unless explicitly stated in the will, and its vesting may preclude alternative takers under the will's express terms.
Facts:
- In 1960, Howard C. Folsom (Testator) died, leaving a will that created a life estate in all his property for his mentally handicapped daughter, Alma Louise Folsom (A. Folsom).
- The will stated that upon A. Folsom's death, the remainder would go to the child or children who took care of her during her lifetime.
- The will provided an alternative: if 'none of my children provide for' A. Folsom, the property would go to any person, including an 'outsider,' who did provide care.
- From 1960 to 1973, Testator's daughter, Lillian Rowell, took A. Folsom into her home and provided care for her. Lillian Rowell died before A. Folsom.
- From 1973 to 1994, Mitchell Folsom, the widow of one of Testator's sons, cared for A. Folsom.
- From 1994 until A. Folsom's death in 2001, Linda Smith, a granddaughter of Testator, and Mitchell Folsom provided care for A. Folsom.
- Certain grandsons of the Testator (Folsom heirs) performed house maintenance for A. Folsom but did not live with her or provide personal care.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Howard C. Folsom's estate filed a motion in probate court for construction of the will.
- The case was transferred from probate court to the superior court (a trial court of general jurisdiction).
- Various heirs filed competing motions for construction of the will and for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the administrator, ruling that the remainder interest vested in Lillian Rowell when she began caring for A. Folsom and that this interest was inherited by her heirs (the Rowell heirs).
- The superior court denied the motions for summary judgment and construction filed by Linda Smith and the Folsom heirs.
- Linda Smith (appellant) and the Folsom heirs (appellants) appealed the superior court's decision to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
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 remainder interest that is contingent upon providing care vest in a testator's child once they begin providing that care, making the interest inheritable and precluding claims from non-children who later provide care, even if the child predeceases the life tenant?
Opinions:
Majority - Carley, Justice
Yes. A remainder interest contingent on providing care becomes vested and inheritable once a child fulfills the condition, precluding claims from non-children who subsequently provide care. The remainder interest was initially contingent because, at the Testator's death, the person who would provide care was unascertained. However, once Lillian Rowell, a child of the Testator, began providing care, the condition precedent was satisfied, and her remainder interest vested, subject to divestment only if she stopped providing care and subject to open for other children who might also provide care. Citing Georgia's strong preference for early vesting and the absence of clear survivorship language in the will, the court held that Ms. Rowell's vested interest was inheritable and passed to her heirs (the Rowell heirs) upon her death. Furthermore, the provision for an 'outsider' to take was expressly conditioned on 'none' of the children providing care. Since Ms. Rowell did provide care, this condition was never met, and the path for any non-child, including the granddaughter Linda Smith, to inherit was permanently closed. The court affirmed that 'children' does not include 'grandchildren' unless the will manifests such an intention.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strong preference in Georgia law for the early vesting of property interests, clarifying that a condition precedent, once met, can transform a contingent remainder into a vested one. It underscores that courts will not imply a survivorship requirement for a vested remainder; such a condition must be stated clearly and unambiguously in the will. The case serves as a critical lesson in testamentary drafting, demonstrating that courts will strictly construe the plain language of a will, even if it leads to a seemingly inequitable result for individuals who provided substantial care. Consequently, alternative bequests conditioned on a negative precedent (e.g., 'if none of my children...') are rendered inoperative the moment the condition is no longer true.
Unlock the full brief for Folsom v. Rowell