Case Title: Conger v. Conger

Citation: 208 Kan. 823, 494 P.2d 1081

Docket Number: 46,258

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1972-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
208 Kan. 823 (1972)
494 P.2d 1081
GORDON CONGER, Appellee,
v.
RAY CONGER, Appellant.
No. 46,258

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 4, 1972.
J.D. Conderman, of Conderman & Talkington, of Iola, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Stanley E. Toland, of Toland & Thompson, of Iola, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, C.J.:
This was an action for possession of a quarter section of farmland in Allen County. The appeal is from the judgment of the district court placing the plaintiff, Gordon Conger, in possession of the real estate.
The defendant, Ray Conger, is an uncle of the plaintiff, and has been in possession of the quarter section since March 14, 1958, under the provisions of the Last Will and Testament of his father, J.I. *824 Conger, which was admitted to probate in Allen County on October 26, 1956.
Because the precise wording of the Will of J.I. Conger is one of the controlling factors, the part of the Will relating to the farm in question is set out:
The issues were properly joined by the pleadings. The plaintiff alleged in substance the life tenancy of Ray Conger had terminated by reason of his failure and neglect to keep the improvements insured and the buildings in reasonable repair. The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations and affirmatively alleged equitable considerations to the effect that if he was in default of any of the obligations required of him under the Will of J.I. Conger, they were not of such major nature as to terminate his estate, and that he stood ready to correct the same forthwith.
The case was tried to the district court, and the parties introduced their evidence in full. Following the trial, each party submitted requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court visited the premises and viewed the buildings, and then made its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, and those pertinent to this controversy are quoted:
"Henhouse, 12' x 14' built prior to 1917.
"Storage building, 10' x 10'.
"Wellhouse building 3' x 3' x 3'.
*826 "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appellant asserts three grounds for error. The first two go to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the district court's findings that Ray Conger did not substantially comply with the obligation to keep the improvements on the property insured for the benefit of the "life tenant and the other parties therein named to whom an interest or estate is devised in said real estate," and did not substantially comply with the duty to "keep the buildings thereon in reasonable repair" as required by the Will of J.I. Conger. The last point relied upon is that the district court erred in disregarding equitable consideration in that it should have provided the appellant reasonable opportunity to make good the alleged defaults.
This court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that the findings of fact of the district court are amply supported; therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the findings of fact will not be set aside as not being supported by substantial competent evidence. (Muntzert v. A.B.C. Drug Co., 206 Kan. 331, 478 P.2d 198; Huxol v. Nickell, 206 Kan. 102, 476 P.2d 606; Schmidt v. Jensen Motors, Inc., 208 Kan. 182, 490 P.2d 383.) The first two contentions of the appellant are without merit.
With regard to the question of whether the appellant is entitled to some equitable considerations in that he should be provided an opportunity to ameliorate the breach of duty that occasioned this lawsuit, it must be pointed out that this court does not rewrite instruments, nor does it construct by inference an intention of the testator that is not there. The right to make a will necessarily includes the right to make it according to the wishes and desires of the testator. Further, where the court has analyzed an entire instrument *828 and the intention of the testator is clear and unambiguous, it is of no consequence that this court, a jury, the parties in interest, or anyone else might have done differently. In short, this court will construe wills where ambiguous; however, it will not substitute its judgment for that of the testator unequivocally expressed. (Ginter v. Ginter, 79 Kan. 721, 101 Pac. 634; In re Estate of Graves, 203 Kan. 762, 457 P.2d 71.)
The devise in question is as unambiguous as any instrument might be. It states that upon the neglect or failure of the life tenant to perform the expressed duties, the estate terminates upon such default. It does not say that the estate would terminate upon re-entry or any other language that would indicate the establishment of a condition subsequent with right of re-entry.
We conclude that the estate in question was of special limitation in that, by its terms, it terminates automatically if a specified event occurs before the time at which the estate would otherwise terminate. Further, the estate created is one of conditional limitation in that the estate is determined by the mere happening of the event by which the limitation is measured and the estate passes to the person having the next expectant interest, without re-entry or claim. (Tiffany, Outlines of Real Property, §§ 63, 117; 1 American Law of Property, § 4.53-58; 31 C.J.S., Estates, § 120; 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estates, § 142; Seay v. Seay, 384 S.W.2d 466 [Ark.] Bridgforth v. Gray, 222 So. 2d 670 [Miss.].)
There is a fundamental distinction between an estate on condition and one on special limitation, in that, while in the former the words which provide for the termination of the estate on a contingency are not regarded as a part of the original limitation of the estate, but provide for the cutting off of the estate before its proper termination, and in the latter the words of contingency are regarded as part of the limitation itself so as to not cut off an estate previously limited, but merely naming an alternative limit to the duration of the estate. There are important practical results of the difference between an estate on condition and one of special limitation, as well. In the case of a special limitation, the contingency is a proper termination of the estate, and after the contingency has been occasioned, no estate can remain in the grantee or devisee; as a consequence, without re-entry or an equivalent act, the right of possession immediately vests in the grantor or the next succeeding person having the right to possession. Further, if the estate was one of condition, the *829 standing of a transferee of the reversion, or a remainderman, would permit no right to take advantage of the estate by such condition, while on special limitation, the transferee or remainderman has always been entitled to derive advantage from the termination of an estate by such limitation. (Tiffany, The Law of Real Property, § 217 [3rd ed. 1939].)
The real distinction, however, between a condition subsequent and a conditional limitation is that in the former the estate is voidable upon the election of the person in whose favor the condition is imposed, while in the latter the estate is void upon the occurrence of the event that would terminate the estate. (Kales Estates, Future Interests, § 243 [2d ed. 1920].) Therefore, while the appellant has presented a very ingenious and viable argument in this court that the estate in question was one of condition subsequent rather than conditional limitation, the fact remains that the appellee, by commencing this action to secure forfeiture of the estate, makes a discussion of the distinctions merely academic. Assuming, arguendo, that the estate created by the devise was one of condition subsequent and voidable at the election of the appellee, then, by seeking to reenter and take possession by the affirmative act of commencing the case at bar, the estate would have become void by that election of the appellee. That rule was recognized in Seay v. Seay, supra, wherein the court stated:
The appellant cites numerous cases wherein equitable considerations were relevant to the cancellation of oil and gas leases for breach of the implied covenant to develop. (Howerton v. Gas Co., 82 Kan. 367, 108 Pac. 813; Alford v. Dennis, 102 Kan. 403, 170 Pac. 1005; Harris v. Morris Plan Co., 144 Kan. 501, 61 P.2d 901.) However, this court finds no merit in the argument that an implied covenant in a lease is similar to an expressed condition in a will. As we stated above, where the testator has spoken in unambiguous terms, this court is without the authority to revise that intention.
As the life estate was to terminate upon the happening of the *830 events in question, this court may not now determine that the appellant is entitled to equitable considerations in the absence of some intention of the testator to that effect.
The judgment is affirmed.