Title: Morgan v. Green
Citation: 562 S.W.2d 612
Docket Number: 77-315
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1978

562 S.W.2d 612 (1978) Jerry Lynn MORGAN et al., Appellants, v. Reba GREEN, Appellee. No. 77-315. Supreme Court of Arkansas, In Banc. March 20, 1978. Eldridge &amp; Eldridge, Augusta, for appellants. Lightle, Tedder, Hannah &amp; Beebe, Searcy, for appellee. *613 HICKMAN, Justice. This appeal questions whether a clause in a will granted a mere life estate, or gave the life tenant an absolute power of alienation. The chancellor, after careful consideration, decided on summary judgment the will of Eva Morgan did not grant her son, Jeff Morgan, the power to sell sixty acres it only gave Morgan a life estate. We disagree with the chancellor and reverse his decision. The relevant portions of Morgan's will provided: Eva Morgan died in 1959 and her son took possession of sixty acres of land devised to him. In 1963, Jeff Morgan sold the land by warranty deed. He died in 1973, and appellee, Reba Green, who stood to have an interest in the sixty acres if it had remained unsold, filed suit to set aside the deed. The case was decided on summary judgment for Green. The present owner brings this appeal. It is our duty in interpreting documents to apply our best judgment consistent with certain rules of construction. We seek to find the intent of the testator. This intention is gathered from a consideration of the entire instrument. Jackson v. Robinson, 195 Ark. 431, 112 S.W.2d 417 (1938); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 225 Ark. 500, 283 S.W.2d 697 (1955). Words and sentences used in a will are to be construed in their ordinary sense so as to arrive at the real intention of the testator. Morris v. Dosch, 194 Ark. 153,106 S.W.2d 159 (1937). We do not consider, as a controlling factor, whether a power oi sale is in the same clause as the grant of a life estate or in a separate clause. Union &amp; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hudson, 143 Ark. 519, 220 S.W. 820 (1920). Applying these rules of construction to Morgan's will we merely have to examine her words. Her son Jeff was granted a life estate "with the right to mortgage, sell, or in any manner to alienate the said property during his lifetime ..." This simply means that he was given the right to sell the real estatenot just his interest in the property. We pointed out in a similar case that such words would be meaningless if they did not grant the life tenant the power to sell the property. He already has the right to sell his interest. Pearrow v. Vaden, 201 Ark. 1146, 148 S.W.2d 320 (1941). We do not find the words "remainder over" in the will granted to Green a vested remainder interest in the property. The words simply provided for the disposition of the property if Morgan did not dispose of it during his lifetime. It is not necessary for us to reach the other argument raised by the appellants since the decree is reversed and remanded with directions to enter a decree for the appellants. Reversed. FOGLEMAN and HOWARD, JJ., dissent. FOGLEMAN, Justice, dissenting. I dissent because I agree with the chancellor's careful analysis of our decisions on the question involved. I also agree with the careful, thorough analysis of our cases by the Hon. John E. Miller, the distinguished Judge (now Senior Judge) of the Western District of Arkansas, in Bone v. United States, 238 F. Supp. 97 (1965). The majority's categorical statement, that the phrase quoted simply means that the life tenant was given the right to sell, not his life estate, but the real estate, is simplistic and not supported by our decisions. Pearrow v. Vaden, 201 Ark. 1146, 148 S.W.2d 320 cannot be viewed in isolation and there were factors involved in Pearrow not present here, as I will presently demonstrate. *614 In his opinion the chancellor stated that our cases reflect no inconsistency, but, to the contrary, disclose a uniformity of application of established rules of construction. That opinion so clearly demonstrates the correct rule and its correct application that I reproduce it, omitting introductory and concluding paragraphs, viz.: We have never heretofore departed from the rule adopted in Patty v. Goolsby, 51 Ark. 61, 9 S.W. 846, from Giles v. Little, 104 U.S. 291, 26 L. Ed. 745 (1881). See Douglass v. Sharp, 52 Ark. 113, 12 S.W. 202; Lester v. Kirtley, 83 Ark. 554,104 S.W. 213; Archer v. Palmer, 112 Ark. 527, 167 S.W. 99. This case is the first departure and, since the Giles rule is a rule of property in Arkansas, the effect of this departure can be devastating to the attorneys and testators who have drawn wills in reliance on our decisions. The explanation that "remainder over" does not vest a remainder will come as a surprise, and perhaps severe shock to the hundreds of will draftsmen to whom "remainder over" has always done just what the majority says that it does not do. "Remainder over" is commonly and universally used to vest a remainder after the termination of a life estate or to describe a remainder so vested. See, e. g., OUar v. Roy, 212 Ark. 682, 207 S.W.2d 313; Thoma v. Coats, 205 Okl. 688, 240 P.2d 736 (1952); Smith v. Frost, 144 Ga. 115, 86 S.E. 235 (1915); 4 Thompson on Real Property (Perm.Ed.) 737, 738, § 2204; 12 Am.Jur. Legal Forms, 132, 146, 147, Titles, Forms 77, 166.29, 166.78, 166.79; 5 Nichols, Cyclopedia of Legal Forms, Annotated 97, 99, §§ 5.354, 5.362; Modern Legal Forms, Title, § 3253; 4 Page on Wills 671, 673, 676, §§ 37.38, 37.42. The expression was so used in Goolsby and in Archer. It is true that the statement was made in Pearrow v. Vaden, 201 Ark. 1146, 148 S.W.2d 320, that a life tenant had the right to sell his life estate without any grant of that power by the will. But that statement is taken out of context and was not the sole basis for the decision. It was only one circumstance. The pertinent will clauses in Pearrow were: We first distinguished Goolsby and Douglass v. Sharp, supra thus: The statement which the majority relies on must be read in context. We said: "Remainder over" is not, and cannot be, synonymous with "property remaining." The majority has made it say what was said in a whole paragraph in the Pearrow will. This case is not controlled by Union &amp; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Moore, 143 Ark. 519, 220 S.W. 820, either.[2] The will clauses construed were: The first part of clause three of the will reads as follows: We said: Again Goolsby and Douglass were appropriately distinguished, thus: It should be noted that when the two clauses here are read together and the proper connotation of the words "remainder over" are used, this will is decidedly different. They are: *619 It is obvious by now, that I would affirm the decree. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice HOWARD joins in this opinion. [1] See Patty v. Goolsby, 51 Ark. 61,9 S.W. 846; Archer v. Palmer, 112 Ark. 527, 167 S.W. 99; Union Merchantile Trust v. Moore, 143 Ark. 519, 220 S.W. 820; Douglass v. Sharp, 52 Ark. 113, 12 S.W. 202; Fields v. Kline, 161 Ark. 418, 256 S.W. 355. [2] The style of this case in the Arkansas Reports is Union Mercantile Co. v. Hudson. This seems to be erroneous, as the Hudson case appears at 220 S.W. 465 and has no bearing on the subject. It was unpublished in the Arkansas Reports. See 144 Ark. 642.