Title: Sands v. Fly

State: tennessee

Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court

Document:

292 S.W.2d 706 (1956) Howard J. SANDS, Individually and as Executor, Estate of Mary Estelle Sands, Deceased v. Jerre FLY Jr., Judge, et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee. July 20, 1956. *707 Tyler Berry and Cletus McWilliams, Franklin, for appellant. Henderson & Henderson, Franklin, for appellees. NEIL, Chief Justice. This appeal involves the question of whether or not certain devises in the will *708 of Mary Estelle Sands, deceased, violates the rule against perpetuities. The original bill was filed by Howard Sands, individually as the only son of the testatrix, and as executor of her estate, complaining that certain devises in the will to named remaindermen in fee simple violate the rule for remoteness, and are void for that reason. All persons who were named as such beneficiaries were made parties defendant. The contention is made by them that the will is valid in all respects and does not violate the rule against perpetuities. The pertinent parts of the will which the Chancellor construed contrary to the complainant's insistence are the following: The Chancellor, in an exhaustive and able opinion, held (1) that the life estate in certain personalty bequeathed to Howard J. Sands for life was void; (2) that the devises to certain remaindermen of the fee were valid, the same not being in violation of the rule against perpetuities; (3) that under Item III of the will the complainant, Howard J. Sands' duty to care for the family plot in Mt. Hope Cemetery was a charge upon his life estate in the lands so devised. It appears that certain extrinsic evidence was heard by the Chancellor but was excluded as being irrelevant. This evidence was not preserved in a bill of exceptions. The counsel seems to have stipulated that the issues raised by the bill and answer presented only questions of law, to which we have made reference. The record discloses that Howard J. Sands is the only heir at law and next of kin of Mary Estelle Sands, deceased. At the time his mother died he was forty-four (44) years of age, was married to one Jimmie Smithson, age forty-one (41). They had four children whose names and ages are stated in the bill, to wit, Mary Elizabeth, age eight (8); Judith Lois, age seven (7); Emily Susan, age five (5); and Sarah Catherine, age three (3), all of whom were alive at testatrix's death and were living when the original bill was filed. Inasmuch as the will was assailed by the Executor as being void, the Chancellor appointed Hon. John H. Henderson as Administrator ad litem whose duty it became to defend the will. All of the named remaindermen were living at the time the testatrix died. And the Tennessee Baptist Orphanage, a charitable organization, was in existence at that time and was operating under the auspices of the Baptist Church of Tennessee, located in Williamson County, Tennessee. It thus appears that all beneficiaries named in the will were in existence when the will in question was executed and were living at the death of the testatrix. In other words, they were definitely ascertained. The answer of the Administrator ad litem admitted that Item III of the will bequeathing a life estate in personalty to Howard J. Sands was void. For this reason we shall make no further reference to it. The assignments of error complain of the error of the Chancellor in holding that the ulterior interest in the 23 4/5 acre tract is vested and not contingent, and that he likewise was in error in holding that the ulterior interest in the 100 acres devised to Elizabeth Pearson, if she should be living at the termination of the life estate in the grandchildren of the testatrix, was a vested and not a contingent remainder. Other assignments are collateral to the principal question involved on this appeal, that is, whether the various devises in Item IV are void as in violation of the rule against perpetuities. It is by Item IV that the two tracts of land are devised, but to different remaindermen. As to the two tracts of land the testatrix devised to Howard J. Sands "but only for and during the term of his natural life, my two tracts of land in the 9th Civil District *710 of Williamson County" (describing each tract) "with remainder in both of said tracts upon the death of said Howard J. Sands, to his child or children living at the time of his death, but only for the life of such child or children of his (if more than one child survives him the life estate created for his children to be shared equally between them)." Now it is further provided that upon the death of the last surviving child, or if he should die without being survived by a child then the smaller tract "shall pass to and be vested in fee in my sister, Miss Eugenia Williams" and to certain named nieces and nephews. If any one or more of the nieces and nephews should not be living at the time of the vesting of said remainder and should not be survived by a child, then such share shall pass to other living nieces or nephews. The last paragraph of Item IV devises life estates in the 100 acre tract the same as the smaller tract, except the remaindermen are one-half in fee to the Baptist Orphanage and one-half "to my niece, Elizabeth Pearson, provided she should be then living" and if not then to her mother, Mrs. Tennie Pearson and her two sisters, Mary and Geneva, "share and share alike." The interest of the Baptist Orphanage is admitted by complainant's counsel "to be a fee simple estate, postponed only in possession." It is a settled rule in all jurisdictions that the intention of the testator is of paramount importance, and this intention must be given effect if it does not contravene some rule of property, or some fixed rule of law or public policy. Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Touriansky, 197 Tenn. 245, 271 S.W.2d 1; Burton v. Kinney, 191 Tenn. 1, 231 S.W.2d 356, 19 A.L.R.2d 366. "All rules of construction are only aids or helps in ascertaining such intention." Nashville Trust Co. v. Johnson, 34 Tenn.App. 197, 236 S.W.2d 100, 105. As heretofore stated in this opinion the complainant contends that the remainder to his children is contingent and void as violating the rule against perpetuities. This is also the contention of the guardian ad litem for the minor children of the complainant. Considering the question, the distinction between a contingent and a vested remainder, the former is only the possibility or prospect of an estate, which exists when what would otherwise be a vested remainder is subject to a condition precedent, or is created in favor of an uncertain person or persons. Tiffany on Real Property, Third Edition, Vol. 2, Section 320. The same author says: "A contingent remainder becomes a vested remainder so soon as the condition precedent is satisfied, or the person or persons to take ascertained, the particular estate still existing." It must be conceded that the rule against perpetuities applies to contingent remainders. Hassell v. Sims, 176 Tenn. 318, 141 S.W.2d 472. Able counsel for the complainant, relying upon the authority of Gray: "Rule Against Perpetuities" and several cited cases, contends that the remainders in the instant case are contingent and void for the reason that the "conditional element", as to the vesting of the fee simple title, was incorporated into the gift of the remaindermen. In other words the gift in remainder was to *711 take effect upon the last survivor of a class holding title, and right to possession, of the particular estate. The devisees of the particular estate in question were of course the children of their father, Howard J. Sands. While the "conditional element" was incorporated in the gift to the remaindermen, it definitely and conclusively appears that this condition was satisfied at the time of the testatrix's death, all children of Howard J. Sands being alive at that time. We must look to the language of the will to determine the intention of the testator as to whether or not a condition contrary to the rule against perpetuities was created. In Armstrong v. Douglass, 89 Tenn. 219, 14 S.W. 604, 606, 10 L.R.A. 85, it is held: The foregoing well considered statement is in conformity with the weight of authority that a remainder interest will never be construed as contingent if it is at all possible to hold that it is vested. In support of the foregoing statements, Anderson, P.J., cites Gray: "Rule against Perpetuities" and Tramell v. Tramell, 162 Tenn. 1, 32 S.W.2d 1025, 35 S.W.2d 574. Contention is made by counsel for the complainant that the testatrix, in Item IV of the will, intended to dispose of her entire estate and that she postponed the vesting of the fee simple title to the lands in the named remaindermen to the time "upon the death of the last surviving child of Howard J. Sands." It is further insisted that this constitutes a continuous statement of intent by limiting them (remaindermen) in the alternative by way of a contingent remainder after a particular estate in such a way that one may take effect if the other does not. We think the foregoing provision in the devise merely postponed the time when the remaindermen were to exercise the right of possession. The undoubted effect of it was to diminish the interest of those who were vested with a life estate in the property. The life estate in the grandchildren, following the life estate in their father, took effect according to the clear intention of testatrix. That intention was unequivocal that, following the termination of the life estate of Howard J. Sands in the two tracts of land devised, then his *712 children (grandchildren of the testatrix) should have a life estate in the same property. This life estate was to endure until the death of the last survivor of the class. The number of children was not important, or that some might be born after the death of the testatrix. The legal effect of the foregoing italicized language was to devise the fee simple estate in the named remaindermen, the same being vested in interest with the right of possession postponed as clearly indicated to a specified time. In Page on Wills (3rd Edition, Section 1261) it is said: In the case at bar the devisees of the particular estate are named as a class. They became vested with a life estate the moment the testatrix died, and the interest so devised opened upon the subsequent birth of children. The title and interest of remaindermen became vested upon the death of the testatrix; the condition precedent to vesting was upon an event that was certain to happen not later than a life, or lives, in being and twenty-one (21) years and nine (9) months thereafter. A case, by way of analogy and applicable here, is Eager v. McCoy, 143 Tenn. 693, 228 S.W. 709. See also Satterfield v. Mayes, 30 Tenn. 58, and Brown v. Brown, 86 Tenn. 277, 6 S.W. 869, 7 S.W. 640. Our cases have uniformly held that where interests devised are subject to contingencies, but all these events must happen, and the various classes be determined within lives in being at the death of the testatrix and twenty-one (21) years and nine (9) months thereafter, such interests begin within the limits of the rule against perpetuities. Eager v. McCoy, supra; Blackburn v. Blackburn, 109 Tenn. 674, 73 S.W. 109; and Harris v. France, supra. The counsel for complainant relies strongly upon In re Feeney's Estate, 293 Pa. 273, 142 A. 284, as authority in support of his contention that the remainders involved in the instant case violate the rule against perpetuities. We must concede that it is a well considered opinion and tends to support the insistence made. But our own case of Brown v. Brown, supra, and other authorities cited in this opinion will not permit us to follow In re Feeney's Estate as controlling. The facts of the Brown case are as follows: The Court sustained the validity of the will as not violating the rule against perpetuities even though the estate might possibly vest in an unborn child of an unborn child. *713 The complainant also relies upon First Nat. Bank v. Pointer, 174 Tenn. 472, 126 S.W.2d 335. This case, however, does not involve the rule against perpetuities, but whether the interest of the son of the testator was contingent or vested. It was held that it was an alternative remainder, that is, if he predeceased his father without issue his interest fell to his mother, and was not subject to the claims of creditors of the son's estate. The remaindermen in the case at bar were ascertained when the will took effect. While the will provided that should one of them die without children surviving, his or her share should go to the survivors, this in no way postponed the vesting in violation of the statute. It was in effect a devise of a remainder in the alternative which is supported by our authorities and especially First National Bank v. Pointer, supra. We are therefore constrained to agree with the Chancellor that the devises in question are not in violation of the rule against perpetuities. In concluding this opinion it is proper to say that the will here involved is a very unjust will. But it is the lawful will of the testatrix. The property devised was her property; she could have disinherited her son and grandchildren had she so desired. This Court cannot make a different will for her under the guise of construing it. It can be truthfully said that this is not the will of the Court, but the will of the testatrix. The costs of this cause must follow the judgment and decree of the court, except the cost of a reasonable fee due the Administrator ad litem. The remaindermen were served with process and a pro confesso taken against them. They refused to defend the will by which they profit by the services of able counsel appointed by the Chancellor. It is therefore our well considered opinion that this charge should be against the fee simple estate which vests in the remaindermen as tenants in common. It is so ordered. The cause is remanded to the Chancery Court for such further orders and decrees as may be necessary for a final decree consistent with this opinion.