Opinion ID: 1885926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Occurrence of Invalid Interest

Text: Finally, we reach the fourth level of discussion: if any interest be found violative of the Rule Against Perpetuities, what disposition will be made of the corpus? It was the theory of the lower court that the intended distribution of trust income after the extinction of testator's nephews and nieces, along with the gift over in remainder to the charities, violated the Rule Against Perpetuities and that, upon the death of the last surviving nephew or niece, the corpus would pass by intestacy. Again the court below ignored the Estates Act of 1947. Section 5(c) of that Act provides: Other void interests. Any other void interest shall vest in the person or persons entitled to the income at the expiration of the period described in section 4(b) (`Wait and see'). Act of April 24, 1947, P.L. 100, § 5(c), 20 P.S. § 301.5(c). Moreover, if the charitable remainder is vested, that interest is valid and Section 5(a) would then control: Valid interests following void interests. A valid interest following a void interest in income shall be accelerated to the termination date of the last preceding valid interest. Act of April 24, 1947, P.L. 100, § 5(a), 20 P.S. § 301.5(a). Since we cannot now determine with certainty what interests do not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, we cannot determine this issue except to note that the court below's conclusion was erroneous in this respect. Decree vacated and the matter remanded to the court below with directions to proceed in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. Estate to pay costs. Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the decision of this case. Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.