Case Name: Diana Kearny POWELL, Appellant, v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, Successor Trustee, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-07-31
Citations: 296 F.2d 412
Docket Number: No. 16071
Parties: Diana Kearny POWELL, Appellant, v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, Successor Trustee, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before Wilbur K. Miller, Chief Judge, and Prettyman and Burger, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 296
Pages: 412–415

Head Matter:
Diana Kearny POWELL, Appellant, v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, Successor Trustee, et al., Appellees.
No. 16071.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 20, 1961.
Decided July 31, 1961.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied En Banc Sept. 20, 1961.
Certiorari Denied Dec. 18, 1961.
See 82 S.Ct. 387.
Miss Diana Kearny Powell, pro se.
Mr. Henry H. Paige, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Arthur P. Drury, John M. Lynham, and John E. Powell, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee, National Savings and Trust Co., Successor Trustee.
Mr. Benj. W. Dulany, Washington, D. C., for appellees Anne T. Ogden and Lester H. Sellers, Ancillary Executors of the Estate of Lucy Powell, deceased.
Mr. Nathan Wald, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Martha Powell Nistler and certain other appellees.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Chief Judge, and Prettyman and Burger, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BURGER, Circuit Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of the District Court construing a testamentary trust pursuant to a petition of the trustee for instructions.
In 1958 the last surviving of five life tenants of the trust estate died and the appellee trustee was required to make final distribution under a residuary trust provision contained in a will executed in 1895. Under the terms of the trust one-half of the trust income was given to each of two daughters of testatrix for life or until marriage, "and upon the marriage or death of both daughters, then fourthly & finally to divide the said property absolutely and in fee, equally between my children now living, viz: the said William Glasgow Powell, Owen Bullitt Powell, George Cuthbert Powell, the said Aimee Elizabeth Powell and the said Lucy Powell, the descendants of any who may die before the time of division hereinbefore fixed, to have and take the share of their deceased parents, it being my intention that my said daughters shall have the whole of said net income in equal shares so long as they live and are unmarried, and upon the marriage or death of one, the whole shall then be paid to the other until her marriage or death, when the entire property is to be equally divided among my children and the descendants of any deceased child or children as hereinbefore specified." (Emphasis added.)
Four of the five children of the testatrix died, without issue surviving, prior to the time of distribution. Appellant is the sole surviving child of William G. Powell, the last survivor of testatrix' five children.
The trustee's request for instructions recited that upon appellant's filing a motion for distribution of the entire estate to herself as the sole surviving descendant of the testatrix, the trustee was unable to determine from the will whether it was to be construed as claimed by appellant or whether it should be construed as giving each of the five children a vested remainder in fee in one-fifth of the trust estate subject to being divested only by his or her death leaving issue prior to the termination of the life estate.
We hold that the will discloses an intent to vest each of the five children with an equal share of the residue "absolutely and in fee," subject only to the life estates of the daughters on the terms described and subject to being divested only if they predeceased the life tenants and were survived by issue.
In Pyne v. Pyne, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 154 F.2d 297, we held that unless both conditions, death of the remainderman during the preceding life estate and survival of issue of the deceased remainderman are met, the remainderman has a vested interest which passes by his will or by statute as the case may be. See also Scott v. Powell, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 277, 182 F.2d 75; Episcopal Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital v. Goodwin, 1960, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 278 F.2d 255.
It is suggested by the dissent that this view ignores the testatrix' express inten tion which is articulated following the vesting clause "to divide the said property absolutely and in fee, equally among my children now living We hold simply that it would take strong and unequivocal language to negate the use of these classic words of art which have accepted meaning and fixed legal consequences. Read as Judge Prettyman reads it, the second part of the sentence is not an explanation but a repudiation of the vesting clause. It should be noted that the explanation or expression of intent which follows the vesting clause, is in turn qualified by the phrase "as hereinbefore specified" which completes the circle and takes us back to the vesting language "absolutely and in fee."
It is no help in the process of searching for intent to look to unanticipated events to prove that the testatrix could not have meant what she said by the words "absolutely and in fee." Of course she had no way of knowing in 1895 that four of her five children would die without issue. But we cannot predicate our construction of the will on what happened over the 63 years intervening between the date of the will and death of the last of five vested remaindermen. Nor can we give such weight as is urged to the "blood line" argument, for if each of her children had been survived by one child those children could have freely distributed this property outside the blood line. That events did not develop as the testatrix probably thought they would does not give us freedom to construe her will now as we think she ought to have written it had she been able to peer 63 years into the future.
Affirmed.