Court Opinion

ID: 9648812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:35:32.091447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.566184
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING George Rose Smith, J. In our original opinion we held that a possibility of reverter can pass by will in Arkansas. In a petition for rehearing the appellees insist that this holding conflicts with a statement in LeSieur v. Spikes, 117 Ark. 366, 175 S. W. 413, to the effect that a possibility of reverter is “not a disposable interest. ’ ’ Lest there be any uncertainty concerning land titles we add these additional paragraphs to make it perfectly clear that there is no inconsistency between the two opinions. No will was involved in the LeSieur case. There the owner of land had conveyed to Dixie Lesieur and the heirs of her body, which of course left a possibility that the land would revert to the grantor if Dixie LeSieur left no bodily heirs. The grantor later executed a deed to a second grantee. We remarked that a possibility of reverter is not a disposable interest, but the statement was merely dictum. Dixie LeSieur in fact was survived by heirs of her body and therefore it was unnecessary to decide whether a possibility of reverter can be transferred by deed. But even if the remark had not been dictum there would still be no conflict between that case and this one. Whether a possibility of reverter can be conveyed by deed depends upon the statutes and decisions governing inter vivos conveyances. At most the LeSieur case could have involved that situation only. But whether such a possibility can be devised by will depends upon the statute of wills. “Alienability and inheritability are distinct characteristics, which . . . are not necessarily coexistent, and . . . the existence of or absence of either characteristic is not determinative of the existence of or absence of the other. Some confusion seems to have" arisen . . . from the failure clearly to recognize this fact.” Copenhaver v. Pendleton, 155 Va. 463, 155 S. E. 802, 77 A. L. R. 324. In the case at bar we express no opinion as to whether a possibility of reverter (a) can be conveyed by deed or (b) can pass by inheritance under our statute of descent and distribution. We have merely followed the majority and better reasoned rule, that a statute of wills like ours permits the devise of such a possibility. Rehearing denied.