Court Opinion

ID: 9695935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:31:37.696175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.503412
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed May 8,1974.
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). In his motion for rehearing appellant contends that under the rationale of Will of Wehr (1967), 36 Wis. 2d 164, 152 N. W. 2d 868, the future interest of Isabelle N. Seherffius is contingent rather than vested. Under Wehr the issue is whether her *697ainterest is classed as “vested subject to complete defeasance” or as “subject to a condition precedent.” Wehr makes clear that this determination depends entirely upon the language of the instrument creating the future interest. We are of the opinion that under the classifications adopted in Wehr, Isabelle’s interest must be considered vested, subject to complete defeasance should she predecease Hilbert Scherffius. In cases of uncertainty the question should be resolved in favor of a vested rather than a contingent remainder. 31 C. J. S., Estates, p. 17, sec. 5. Other arguments raised by appellant have been considered.
Motion for rehearing denied without costs.