In Re Estate of Hendrickson
736 A.2d 540, 324 N.J. Super. 538 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Rule in Shelley's Case is not triggered by a conveyance that grants a remainder interest 'to such person or persons as shall be [the life tenant's] heir or heirs,' as this language constitutes words of purchase (designatio personarum) that describe the takers, rather than words of limitation that define the life tenant's estate.
Facts:
- In 1920, Wycoff Hendrickson executed a will.
- The will devised 'Mulberry Hill Farm' to his son, Earle Hendrickson, 'during the term of his natural life.'
- The will specified that after Earle's death, the farm would be devised 'to such person or persons as shall be his sole heir or heirs in land in fee simple.'
- Wycoff Hendrickson died in 1928, and his will was probated.
- Earle Hendrickson died on May 31, 1997, without any children.
- Earle's own will named Elizabeth A. Olson and Nancy L. Nicholson ('Earle's devisees') as beneficiaries of his property.
- At the time of his death, a different group of relatives qualified as his legal heirs ('Earle's heirs').
Procedural Posture:
- In 1955, Earle Hendrickson filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey Chancery Division regarding the farm.
- On November 8, 1956, the court entered a judgment compelling the sale of the farm.
- The proceeds from the farm's sale were placed into a trust, to be held subject to the terms of Wycoff Hendrickson's will.
- Following Earle Hendrickson's death in 1997, Fleet Bank, N.A., the trustee, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, seeking instructions for distributing the trust assets to either Earle's devisees or Earle's heirs.
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 the language in a pre-1934 will devising property to a son 'during the term of his natural life' and then 'to such person or persons as shall be his sole heir or heirs' trigger the Rule in Shelley's Case, thereby conveying a fee simple interest to the son?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, P.J.Ch.
No, this language does not trigger the Rule in Shelley's Case; it conveys only a life estate to the son. Although the Rule was part of New Jersey common law when Wycoff's will was probated in 1928, its application can be avoided by specific drafting. The court relied on the controlling precedent of Peer v. Hennion, which held that language devising a remainder 'to such person or persons as shall be her heir or heirs' does not trigger the Rule. The court reasoned that this phrasing acts as 'designatio personarum'—a description of the specific individuals who are to take the remainder as purchasers directly from the original testator (Wycoff). This is distinct from a simple devise 'to his heirs,' which would be considered words of limitation that merge with the life estate to create a fee simple. Because the language in Wycoff's will mirrors the language in Peer, the court concluded that the drafter intentionally used this phrasing to avoid the Rule, thus granting Earle only a life estate and passing the remainder to his heirs.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a significant modern application of an archaic common law doctrine, demonstrating that abolished rules can still govern disputes involving instruments drafted before their repeal. It underscores the critical importance of precise legal phrasing, as the subtle distinction between 'to his heirs' and 'to such persons as shall be his heirs' completely alters the disposition of property. The case reinforces the principle that courts will look to the controlling precedent from the era in which a document was created to interpret its meaning, even when that precedent applies a rule that conflicts with modern principles of effectuating testator intent.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Estate of Hendrickson