Zauner v. Brewer
596 A.2d 388, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 409, 220 Conn. 176 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testamentary language regarding property disposition that is susceptible to multiple meanings requires courts to consider extrinsic evidence to discern the testator's true intent, thereby precluding summary judgment. Furthermore, a life tenant has a duty to make ordinary and preventative repairs to avoid permissive waste, and an indefeasibly vested remainderman can seek immediate money damages for such waste under General Statutes § 52-563, even before the termination of the life tenancy, without needing to prove permanent and substantial injury.
Facts:
- Virginia R. Ward (the testatrix) executed a will in July 1967.
- Article three of Ward's will devised a thirty-three acre property known as 'Beaver Dam' to her friend, Leonie Sullivan Brewer, for the term of Brewer’s natural life, with the remainder interest to Ward's son, John S. Barnett, upon Brewer's death 'or if she surrenders the premises prior thereto.'
- The property at the time of the will's execution included a newly constructed house, recently landscaped grounds, and a clear, swimmable man-made pond with a boathouse and dock.
- Virginia R. Ward died in October 1967.
- Leonie Sullivan Brewer entered into possession of the property and resided there until September 1988.
- In September 1988, Brewer purchased and began to occupy another home, subsequently leasing the Beaver Dam property to a third party, who remains in possession.
- John S. Barnett (Ward's son) passed away, and his sole devisee, Anne Barnett Zauner (the plaintiff), became the owner of the remainder interest.
- During Brewer's tenancy, the buildings and grounds of the property fell into disrepair, with issues such as splitting boat dock posts, cracked mortar on a retaining wall, wall coverings coming off, and the pond becoming overgrown and essentially unusable.
Procedural Posture:
- Anne Barnett Zauner commenced an action in the Superior Court (trial court) alleging that Leonie Sullivan Brewer's leasing of the property constituted a 'surrender' under the will and that Brewer had committed 'waste' under General Statutes § 52-563.
- Upon completion of discovery, Leonie Sullivan Brewer moved for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted Leonie Sullivan Brewer's motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing both claims.
- Anne Barnett Zauner appealed to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal from the Appellate Court to itself in accordance with Practice Book § 4023.
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 genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether a life tenant's leasing of the property constitutes a 'surrender of the premises' within the intended meaning of a will, and does a life tenant's failure to make ordinary repairs constitute actionable 'waste' under General Statutes § 52-563 for which an indefeasibly vested remainderman can seek immediate damages prior to the termination of the life estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Glass, J.
Yes, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding both whether the defendant's leasing of the property constituted a 'surrender of the premises' and whether the defendant committed actionable waste for which the plaintiff can seek immediate damages. First, the court concluded that the phrase 'surrenders the premises' in the testatrix’s will was ambiguous. The word 'premises' can refer to either an interest in property (a legal estate) or the physical land and buildings. Similarly, 'surrender' can denote a technical legal relinquishment of an estate or a yielding up of physical possession. Because this duplicity of meaning made the testatrix’s intent indiscernible from the will’s language alone, resort to extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine if leasing the property constituted a surrender. Therefore, summary judgment on this issue was improper. Citing cases like Wolfe v. Hatheway and Ministers Benefit Board v. Meriden Trust Co., the court emphasized that a will's language cannot be determined by arbitrary legal definition but depends on the will's specific provisions, often requiring extrinsic facts to explain uncertain language. Second, the court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the defendant committed actionable permissive waste under General Statutes § 52-563. A life tenant has a duty to keep the land and structures in as good repair as they were received, encompassing both remedying existing substantial disrepair and making preventive ordinary repairs (e.g., painting, roof repairs). Failure to perform either aspect of this duty constitutes permissive waste, and the court rejected the argument that 'injury' under § 52-563 requires 'permanent and substantial' damage or that only equitable relief is available prior to the tenancy’s termination. An indefeasibly vested remainderman, like the plaintiff, is entitled to maximum protection, including immediate compensatory damages for both voluntary and permissive waste, as established for voluntary waste in Hamden v. Rice. The court found no principled reason to distinguish remedies for voluntary and permissive waste, asserting that the possibility of future repairs does not bar immediate damages. Thus, summary judgment on the waste claim was also improper, and both equitable and legal relief are immediately available to the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of ambiguous testamentary language in wills, emphasizing that courts should prioritize the testator's true intent, often necessitating the consideration of extrinsic evidence rather than relying solely on technical legal definitions. This approach limits the use of summary judgment in will construction disputes where ambiguity exists. Furthermore, the decision strengthens the protections for owners of future interests by explicitly defining the scope of a life tenant's duty to prevent permissive waste, including both remedial and preventative maintenance. Crucially, it establishes an indefeasibly vested remainderman's immediate right to seek monetary damages for both voluntary and permissive waste, providing a more robust remedy than previously articulated for permissive waste and reducing the burden of proving 'permanent and substantial' injury, thus ensuring greater accountability for life tenants.
