Court Opinion

ID: 9769986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:10:13.691957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.663819
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
NOR YELL, Justice.
I am m essential agreement with what Mr. Justice Steakley says in the forepart of his dissenting opinion. Under the plain wording of the document before us, title to the property which is the subject matter of the testamentary trust created by Mabel Rekdahl did not vest until the termination of such trust and hence the provisions contained in Mrs. Rekdahl’s will creating such trust are violative of the rule against per-petuities.
The public policy sought to be served by the rule is an important one and is strongly stated in our Constitution: “Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, * * (Article 1, § 26, Texas Constitution.) However, the expedient of knocking off a few years so as to amend the will to save the trust is but little more acceptable to me than the adoption of the “postponement of possession” device fashioned by the majority to circumvent the rule. In today’s fast moving world, we should not encourage the vain attempts of those who attempt to place a “dead hand” upon the movement and transfer of property when no public or charitable purpose is accomplished thereby. And, I submit, we should not amend, construe and change written instruments because scriveners are unlearned in the intricacies of the rule against perpetuities, the requirements of the statute of wills, the niceties of the law of conveyances or the refinements of the statutes of fraud. To the contrary, we should give the words contained in the document their clear meaning and purport, and then apply the applicable public policy rule thereto. The adoption of any other rule will produce uncertainty and result in confusion. I would render judgment for petitioners.