Webb v. Underhill
882 P.2d 127, 130 Or. App. 352, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1428 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will creates a remainder interest in one party conditioned on surviving the life tenant, and an alternative remainder interest in a second party if the first party fails to survive, both remainder interests are contingent.
Facts:
- Ernest Webb died, leaving a will that granted his wife, Agnes Webb, a life estate in his property, the Buck Hollow Ranch, for as long as she lived or until she remarried.
- The will stipulated that upon the termination of Agnes's life estate, the ranch would be divided equally among four of his children: Delbert, Delores, La Velle, and Wayne.
- The will further provided that if any of these four children were deceased at the time Agnes's life estate ended, that child's share would pass to their 'lineal descendants.'
- After Ernest's death but while Agnes was still alive and unmarried, one of the named children, Delbert Webb, passed away.
- Delbert was survived by his wife, Carol, and their three adult children (the grandchildren).
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Agnes Webb, two of her children, Delbert's widow Carol, and Delbert's three children) filed an action for partition of the Buck Hollow Ranch in an Oregon trial court.
- Defendant La Velle Underhill (another of Ernest's children) was the opposing party.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked the vested remainder interest required to bring a partition suit.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 will that devises a remainder interest to named children, but provides that if a child is deceased when the life estate terminates their share goes to their lineal descendants, create contingent remainders in both the children and their descendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Rossman, P. J.
Yes. A will that creates alternative remainder interests, where the ultimate taker is determined by who survives the life tenant, establishes contingent remainders for all potential beneficiaries. The court reasoned that to maintain an action for partition, a party must hold a vested remainder interest. The language in Ernest Webb's will unambiguously established the termination of Agnes's life estate (by death or remarriage) as the 'triggering event' that determines the beneficiaries. The will created alternative contingent remainders: one for the named children and another for their lineal descendants. Citing 'Love v. Lindstedt', the court held that when the same contingency—surviving the life tenant—decides which of two alternative remainders takes effect, both are contingent. The identity of the takers cannot be ascertained until the triggering event occurs, making all future interests uncertain and therefore contingent. The grandchildren's interests are also contingent, as they take directly from Ernest's will, not through their father Delbert, and the class of 'lineal descendants' remains open until Agnes's life estate ends.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between vested and contingent remainders under Oregon law, particularly for wills with survivorship conditions and alternative beneficiaries. It solidifies the principle that when a gift is conditioned on surviving to a future point in time, the interest is contingent until that time arrives. This precedent is significant for estate planning and property litigation, as it restricts the ability of potential heirs to force a partition or sale of property before their interests have indefeasibly vested. The ruling reinforces that courts will strictly interpret will language to determine the testator's intent regarding the timing of vesting.
