In re the Accounting of Krooss
302 N.Y. 424 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A remainder interest that is vested 'absolutely and forever' is only divested if all explicitly stated, conjunctive conditions for divestment are met. Courts will not imply a general requirement of survivorship where the testator has specified particular conditions for defeating the vested gift.
Facts:
- Herman Krooss created a will giving his wife, Eliese Krooss, a life estate in his residuary property.
- The will stated that upon Eliese's death, the remainder would go to his children, John H. Krooss and Florence Maue, 'share and share alike, to and for their own use absolutely and forever.'
- A subsequent clause specified that if either child died before Eliese 'leaving descendants,' then those descendants would take the parent's share.
- Herman Krooss died in 1932, survived by his wife and two children.
- His daughter, Florence Maue, died in 1947.
- Florence Maue died without having any descendants.
- The life tenant, Eliese Krooss, died in 1950, three years after Florence.
Procedural Posture:
- Florence Maue's husband, as executor of her estate, initiated a proceeding in the Surrogate's Court of Bronx County against John Krooss to compel an accounting of Herman Krooss's estate.
- The Surrogate's Court (trial court) construed the will and held that Florence's interest was vested at the testator's death and passed to her estate.
- John Krooss appealed the Surrogate's decree to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division modified the Surrogate's decree, ruling that the will imposed a condition of survival on the remaindermen and that Herman Krooss died intestate as to Florence's share.
- Florence's executor then appealed the Appellate Division's order to the Court of Appeals of New York (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:
Does a remainder interest, which is granted absolutely, become divested when the remainderman predeceases the life tenant but fails to meet the will's additional, conjunctive condition for divestment of leaving descendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuld, J.
No. The remainder interest is not divested. A vested remainder is only defeated when the exact circumstances specified for divestment occur. The will created a vested remainder in Florence, granting her the property 'absolutely and forever.' The subsequent language did not create a condition of survival; rather, it established two specific, conjunctive conditions for divestment: 1) the child must die before the life beneficiary, and 2) the child so dying must leave descendants. While Florence met the first condition by predeceasing her mother, she did not meet the second, as she had no descendants. Because both stipulated conditions did not occur, her vested interest was not defeated and therefore passed to her estate upon her death. This interpretation is consistent with the law's strong preference for the early vesting and indefeasibility of estates and is supported by a long line of precedents construing similar language.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle favoring the early vesting of estates and requiring strict construction of conditions for divestment. It clarifies that when a will specifies multiple, conjunctive conditions to defeat a vested remainder, all conditions must be satisfied for the divestment to be effective. The ruling provides certainty in estate law by refusing to imply a general survivorship requirement that the testator did not explicitly write. Consequently, this precedent guides lower courts to preserve vested gifts unless the language of divestment is unmistakably clear and its precise conditions have been fully met.
Unlock the full brief for In re the Accounting of Krooss