Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Beach
112 Ill. Dec. 224, 118 Ill. 2d 1, 513 N.E.2d 833 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a grant to a settlor's 'heirs' following a life estate, the presumption that heirs are determined at the settlor's death can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence showing the settlor intended them to be determined at the life tenant's death. This approach discards the archaic rule favoring early vesting of remainders and its corresponding heightened standard of proof.
Facts:
- On March 30, 1921, Frank P. Hixon and his fiancée Alice Green executed an antenuptial agreement creating a trust for Alice's benefit.
- The 1921 trust provided Alice with income for life and stated that upon her death, the remaining principal should be 'divided among the heirs of [Hixon], share and share alike.'
- On May 31, 1926, Hixon created a second, similar trust for Alice, providing her with income for life and stating that upon her death, the principal should be 'distributed equally among my [Hixon’s] heirs.'
- Hixon died in 1931 at age 69, survived by his wife Alice (then 49), and his two daughters from a previous marriage, Ellen and Dorothy.
- Both of Hixon's daughters, Ellen and Dorothy, died in 1973. Dorothy died childless, while Ellen was survived by children.
- Alice, the life tenant, lived for 51 years after Hixon's death, passing away in 1982.
- At the time of Alice's death in 1982, Hixon's living descendants were two grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.
Procedural Posture:
- Harris Trust and Savings Bank, as trustee, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County (a trial court) seeking instructions on the distribution of two trusts.
- The potential beneficiaries, including charities (devisees of a deceased daughter) and Hixon's descendants, filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the charities, ruling that Hixon's heirs should be determined as of the date of his death.
- The grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as appellants, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the Doctrine of Worthier Title applied, which voided the gift to the heirs and caused the trust assets to pass through the residuary clause of Hixon's will.
- The great-grandchildren, as appellants, petitioned for and were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois (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:
When a trust instrument creates a life estate and directs the remainder to be distributed to the settlor's 'heirs,' are the heirs to be determined at the time of the settlor's death, or at the later death of the life tenant, when evidence of the settlor's intent suggests a delayed determination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Simon
At the later death of the life tenant. The court holds that a settlor's intent to ascertain heirs at a time other than their own death need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence here indicates Hixon intended his heirs to be determined upon Alice's death. The court reasoned that the historical justification for favoring early vesting of remainders—the now-abolished doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders—is no longer relevant. Continuing to apply a rigid rule of construction that presumes vesting at the settlor's death often defeats the settlor's probable intent. Here, several factors indicate Hixon's intent to delay vesting: 1) The trusts were centered around Alice's life and death, not Hixon's; 2) Given the 20-year age difference, Hixon likely anticipated the trusts would last long after his death, and his use of the general term 'heirs' suggests an intent to encompass future changes in his family; 3) The 'divide and pay over rule' suggests a contingent gift to a class whose members are ascertained at the time of distribution; and 4) Determining heirs at Hixon's death would result in a distribution pattern very similar to if the property reverted to his estate, which contradicts the trust's structure providing for a different outcome if Alice survived him. Therefore, the heirs are the descendants living at Alice's death.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of Illinois future interests law by subordinating the archaic preference for early vesting to the principle of honoring the settlor's intent. By lowering the standard of proof from 'plainly shown' to a 'preponderance of the evidence,' the court makes it substantially easier for parties to argue that 'heirs' should be determined at the life tenant's death. This ruling aligns the law with the probable intent of most settlors, who likely wish for their property to benefit the family members alive when the trust terminates, rather than passing through the estates of long-deceased individuals to potential strangers. The case effectively shifts the focus from rigid, historical rules of construction to a more flexible, intent-focused analysis of the trust instrument and surrounding circumstances.
