Warren v. Albrecht
213 Ill. App. 3d 55, 571 N.E.2d 1179, 157 Ill. Dec. 160 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A future interest does not violate the common law rule against perpetuities if the interest is certain to vest or fail at the death of the life tenant, who is a life in being at the time the interest is created.
Facts:
- James W. McGaughey executed a will devising real estate in a trust for his grandson, John Warren, until he reached age 30.
- The will stipulated that after the trust terminated, John Warren would hold a life estate in the property.
- Upon John Warren's death, the will directed the property to pass to his 'then living child or children, or survivors thereof.'
- The will further provided that if John Warren died with no surviving descendants, the property would pass to his sisters, Emma B. Warren and Goldy Maude Warren, or their survivors.
- If neither sister nor their descendants survived John Warren, the property would go to James W. McGaughey's legal heirs.
- James W. McGaughey died in 1943, and his will took effect.
- In 1987, John Warren's sons, Donald and Ronald, executed quitclaim deeds transferring their future interests in the land to their father, John Warren.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff John Warren brought an action to quiet title in the circuit court of Madison County.
- Warren claimed the devise in James W. McGaughey’s will violated the rule against perpetuities.
- Both plaintiff and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the devise valid.
- Plaintiff John Warren, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the appellate 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 devise that grants a life estate to a beneficiary and a remainder to his 'then living child or children,' with alternative remainders to other parties if the life tenant dies without issue, violate the common law rule against perpetuities?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Howerton
No. The devise does not violate the common law rule against perpetuities because all future interests created by the will are certain to vest at the death of the life tenant, John Warren. The rule requires that an interest must vest, if at all, within 21 years after a life in being at the creation of the interest. Here, John Warren is the life in being. Upon his death, it will be known definitively whether he has surviving children or descendants to take the property. If he does, their interest vests immediately. If he does not, the interest immediately vests in his sisters or the testator's heirs. Because all possibilities are resolved at the moment of John Warren's death, the vesting occurs within the period prescribed by the rule, which is therefore not violated.
Analysis:
This case serves as a classic illustration of how the Rule Against Perpetuities operates and how courts often interpret testamentary language to avoid its application. The court's decision reinforces the principle that the rule is concerned with the remoteness of vesting, not the duration of an interest. By concluding that all contingent remainders would vest or fail at the life tenant's death, the court applied the well-established judicial preference for early vesting. This holding provides clarity that a condition of survivorship tied to the death of a life tenant does not, by itself, create a perpetuities problem.
