In Re Estate of Gerbing
337 N.E.2d 29, 61 Ill. 2d 503 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition annexed to a bequest that tends to encourage divorce is void as against public policy. When such a void condition is an inseparable part of the testator's scheme, courts will examine the testator's overall intent; if the primary intent was to benefit the beneficiary, the gift vests absolutely as if the illegal condition never existed.
Facts:
- Hattie Gerbing created a will that placed the residue of her estate into a trust for the benefit of her son, Frank Gerbing, Jr.
- The trust provided that Frank would receive the net income for life and could request distributions from the principal.
- Article 4.4 of the will stipulated that the trust would terminate, and the remaining property would be delivered to Frank, upon the occurrence of one of two conditions: (1) if his wife, Arlie Gerbing, predeceased him, or (2) if he and Arlie divorced and remained divorced for two years.
- The will further provided that if Frank died before Arlie, the trust property would pass to contingent beneficiaries, including Hattie's sister, Katherine Siebold Grigg.
- Hattie Gerbing passed away, and her will was subsequently admitted to probate.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Gerbing, Jr., as executor, filed a petition in the probate division of the circuit court of Cook County, asking for instructions concerning the trust's validity.
- The contingent beneficiaries filed a reply, asserting the trust was valid.
- The trial court found the trust to be valid and ordered the executor to make distributions accordingly.
- Frank Gerbing, Jr., individually, appealed the trial court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court held that the divorce condition was void but severable from the condition of the wife's death, reversing the trial court in part.
- Frank Gerbing, Jr., individually, then appealed the appellate court's decision to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 condition in a will that terminates a trust and vests property in a beneficiary if they divorce their spouse violate public policy, and if so, does the invalidity of the condition cause the entire gift to fail?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ryan
Yes, a condition in a will that gives a beneficiary property upon divorcing their spouse violates public policy, and its invalidity does not cause the gift to fail; rather, the gift vests absolutely in the beneficiary. The court found that a condition in a will that encourages divorce is void as against public policy because it tends to aggravate normal marital differences. The court determined that the divorce condition and the condition regarding the wife's death were inseparable parts of a single scheme by the testator, Hattie Gerbing, to prevent her son from owning the property as long as he was married to his wife, Arlie. Since the conditions were inseparable, both must fail. The court then addressed the effect of the void conditions, overruling prior precedent (Tripp v. Payne) that would have caused the gift to fail entirely. Adopting a modern approach focused on testator intent, the court examined the entire will and found that Hattie's primary intent was to provide for her son. Given this intent, the court concluded that had Hattie known the conditions were illegal, she would have preferred the gift to vest absolutely in her son rather than fail altogether. Therefore, the court struck the void conditions and held that the trust property vests in Frank Gerbing, Jr. absolutely.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Illinois jurisprudence concerning the effect of illegal conditions in wills. By expressly overruling cases like Tripp v. Payne, the court abandoned a rigid, formalistic approach in favor of a modern, intent-focused analysis. This precedent directs lower courts to look at the 'four corners' of the will to determine what a testator would have likely intended had they known a condition was void. The ruling favors preserving bequests by making the gift absolute rather than having it fail, especially when the testator's primary purpose was to provide for the beneficiary, thereby promoting more equitable outcomes.
