Opinion ID: 1292125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Little History Helps

Text: Some history will also illuminate matters. As indicated, Alfred referred to Richard's interest as an indefeasibly vested interest in fee. Given the history of the law in the area, Alfred's use of this phrase is telling. The question has often arisen in the courts as to whether, in the absence of such a phrase, one should imply a condition of survival of the possessor of the precedent estate. Historically, courts did not do so; for various reasons, remainder interests were usually construed as vested rather than contingent whenever possible. See, e.g., Fulton, 179 Iowa at 951, 162 N.W. at 254; Schrader, 158 Iowa at 88, 139 N.W. at 161. In the context of the case at bar, there was a pervasive constructional preference in the property law for vested future interests over contingent future interests and for early vesting over vesting at a later time; this means, in this context, that there is a constructional preference for there being no condition of survivorship of the life tenant. Bergin & Haskell at 127 (emphasis added). Thus in 1916 in Lingo we stated: [ A ] ll estates will be regarded as vested unless a condition precedent thereto is so clearly expressed that it cannot be regarded as vested without doing violence to the language of the will. To effectuate this rule, words of seeming condition are, if possible, to be construed as postponing the time of enjoyment.... The law presumes that words of postponement relate to the enjoyment of the remainder rather than the vesting thereof, and the intent to postpone the vesting of the estate must be clear and manifest. Lingo, 174 Iowa at 467, 468, 156 N.W. at 404, 405 (emphasis added). For example, we held the mere grant of a life estate to one does not render a beneficiary's interest contingent on the life tenant's survival. See id. ; see also Clarken v. Brown, 258 Iowa 18, 24, 137 N.W.2d 376, 379-80 (1965) (holding where testator devised a life estate to his brother and at the death of his brother to his lawful heirs that the remainder vested, as there was nothing in the will to indicate to the contrary); Lytle v. Guilliams, 241 Iowa 523, 529, 41 N.W.2d 668, 671 (1950) (similar). Over time, however, this preference waned so that it was unsettled by the time Alfred wrote his will in 1972. See Henkel v. Auchstetter, 240 Iowa 1367, 1375, 39 N.W.2d 650, 654 (1949) (Many of the reasons which generated the favoritism have long been nonexistent. It is no longer an important rule of construction, and should not be.). Viewed in this historical context, Alfred's use of the phrase indefeasibly vested interest in fee is evidence Alfred intended to forestall any implied inference that Richard's interest was contingent upon Richard surviving his mother. Although the new Iowa Trust Code completely reverses the common law preference for vested interests and deems all interests contingent upon survival to the time of possession unless specifically stated otherwise, it is also clear the provisions of the trust must govern. In this case we are constrained to follow the intent of the testator, determined at the time the will is made and based upon the facts then existing, that specifically granted a vested remainder to Richard, which is a specific statement he need not survive Pearl. See Iowa Code § 633.1105; Arends, 311 N.W.2d at 689 n. 2.