Court Opinion

ID: 9769985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:10:13.688537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.612879
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
STEAKLEY, Justice.
I am unable to agree with the holding that the title of the ultimate beneficiaries vests at the death of Aramis Rekdahl. Such title does not vest until the termination of the trust, and thus, as pointed out on page five of the majority opinion, the conveyance is violative of the Rule Against Perpetuities.
In determining whether a particular conveyance violates the Rule Against Perpetuities, the crucial consideration is the language employed. See Kettler v. Atkinson, 383 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex.Sup.1964); Restatement, Property § 242 (1940) ; cf. W. B. Leach & J. Logan, Future Interests and Estate Planning 245 (1961). The will in question provides in part:
“8. After the death of'Aramis Rekdahl and after his children have successively attained the age of thirty five years or have died so that there is none left to attain the age of thirty-five years then all of this trust shall terminate. * * *
“9. Neither the assets of such trust nor any part of the trusts referred to above, *396nor the income therefrom shall vest in any of such beneficiaries until the termination of said trust. * * * ” (Emphasis added.)
The word “vest” may denote either a vesting in interest or a vesting in possession. See, e. g., Randall v. Bank of America, 48 Cal.App.2d 249, 119 P.2d 754 (1941); Burney v. Arnold, 134 Ga. 141, 67 S.E. 712 (1910). However, the ordinary meaning of the word “vest” is “vest in interest”, and courts are reluctant to construe the word “vest” as meaning “vest in possession.” See In Re Haney’s Estate, 174 Cal.App.2d 1, 344 P.2d 16 (1959); 3 T. Jarman, Wills 2042 (8th ed 1951).
By virtue of the first clause of paragraph eight, set out above, the proceeds of the trust vest in possession at the termination of the trust. Therefore to ascribe the meaning “vest in possession” to the word “vest” in paragraph nine renders the first clause of paragraph nine mere surplusage. A will should be construed so as to give effect to every clause. See Irons v. Fort Worth Sand & Gravel Co., 260 S.W.2d 629, 631 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1953, writ ref’d n. r. e.). Thus the word “vest” in paragraph nine means vest in interest, and the interest of the ultimate beneficiaries does not vest until the termination of the trust.
At common law, where an interest may vest too remotely, the entire interest has been stricken down. See W. B. Leach & O. Tudor, The Rule Against Perpetuities § 24.47 (1957). Ignoring a testator’s obvious intent and striking down a bequest because the scrivener of his will was unlearned in all of the intricacies of the Rule Against Perpetuities seems basically wrong. Recognizing this, a number of legal writers have advocated the application of the principle of cy pres (also known as equitable approximation) to perpetuities problems. See 6 American Law of Property § 24.11 at 42 (Casner ed. 1952); L. Simes & A. Smith, Future Interests § 1257 (2d ed. 1956); L. Simes, Public Policy and the Dead Hand 74-80 (1955); Browder, Construction, Reformation, and the Rule Against Per-petuities, 62 Mich.L.Rev. 1 (1963); Leach, Perpetuities Legislation: Hail Pennsylvania, 108 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1124, 1149 (1960); Quarles, The Cy Pres Doctrine: Its Application to Cases Involving the Rule Against Perpetuities and Trust for Accumulation, 21 N.Y.U.L.Q. 384 (1946); contra J. C. Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities §§ 857-893 (4th ed. 1942.)1
The doctrine of cy pres goes on the principle that “where there is a general and a particular intent, and the particular one cannot take effect, the words shall be construed to give effect to the general intent.” Robinson v. Hardcastle, (1788) 2 Durn. & E. 241, 254. The most common application of the cy pres doctrine is in the law of charitable trusts. If it is impossible, impractical, or illegal to carry out the terms of a charitable trust, and the settlor has indicated a general charitable purpose, the courts will authorize the substitution of another charitable scheme within the general purpose. See generally Coffee v. William Marsh Rice University, 408 S.W.2d 269, 285-286 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 399 (1959); 4 A. Scott, Trusts § 399 (1959). There is no logical reason why a similar process should not be applied to a perpetuities problem where the age contingency is in excess of twenty-one years. Where the dominant intent expressed throughout the will relates to who should be the beneficiaries and not when the distribution should take place, an age *397contingency in excess of twenty-one years should be reduced to twenty-one.
Reduction of an age contingency to avoid the destructive effects of the Rule Against Perpetuities is not a recent innovation. In 1832, the English Commissioners on the Law of Real Property recommended that where a gift violated the Rule by reason of an age contingency in excess of twenty-one years, the contingency should be reduced to twenty-one. Parliament adopted this recommendation in 1925.2 Since then, Connecticut,3 Maine,4 Maryland,5 Massachusetts,6 and New York7 have enacted similar perpetuities legislation.
Cy pres developments have not been limited to the legislature. On the judicial front, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire reduced an age contingency without the aid of a statute in Edgerly v. Barker, 66 N.H. 434, 31 A. 900, 28 L.R.A. 328 (1891). There the testator provided that the estate would vest when the youngest of his grandchildren attained the age of forty. By cy pres, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reduced the age contingency to twenty-one years. In Carter v. Berry, 243 Miss. 321, 140 So.2d 843, 95 A.L.R.2d 791 (1962), the Mississippi Supreme Court took a similar position. There the testator directed that the trust continue until his youngest grandchild reached twenty-five. The court relied heavily upon Edgerly and adopted its cy pres solution of reducing the age contingency to twenty-one years.
The Rule Against Perpetuities “should be a check on vain, capricious action by wealthy empire builders. But it should not be a constantly present threat to reasonable dispositions which slightly overstep a technical line.” W. B. Leach & O. Tudor, The Rule Against Perpetuities § 24.11 at 43 (1957). Reduction of an age contingency to twenty-one years where this helps effectuate the primary intent of the testator is a step toward relegating the Rule Against Perpetuities to its proper function. So, here as in Edgerly v. Barker, supra, and Carter v. Berry, supra, the court should look to the testatrix’ dominant intent. A reading of the entire will makes clear that Mabel Rekdahl’s dominant intent was that the children of Aramis Rekdahl, rather than Aramis Rekdahl himself, receive the proceeds of the trust. That they should not have it until the youngest reached the age of thirty-five was secondary. Utilizing cy pres, the thirty-five year age contingency should be reduced to twenty-one, and the proceeds of the trust should be distributed when the youngest of Aramis Rekdahl’s children, whenever born, reaches the age of twenty-one.8
This reduction of the age contingency eliminates any possibility of the interest here in question not vesting within a life in being and twenty-one years. For purposes of the Rule Against Perpetuities, Aramis Rekdahl is a life in being. See generally W. Schwartz, Future Interests and Estate Planning § 6.3 (1965). With this *398reduction m the age contingency, the interest would have to vest, at the very latest, twenty-one years after the death of Aramis Rekdahl.
CALVERT, C. J., and GREENHILL, J., join in this dissent.

I. “Judges who have made up their minds to develop a better law of perpetuities should not allow themselves to be bullied by Gray’s massive volume. * * * ” “Gray’s patient scholarship was devoted to establishing a monolithic Rule, beautiful in its logical self-consistency. * * * Certainty, simplicity and clarity are desirable in any rule of law, but they are not the only virtues or even sufficient virtues.” See Leach, Perpetuities in Perspective: Ending the Rule’s Reign of Terror, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 721, 747 (1952).

. Law of Property Act, 9th April, 1925, XV Geo. 5, ch. 20, § 163.

. Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 45-96 (1960). See 54 Mich.L.Rev. 723 (1956).

. Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. ch. 160, § 28 (Supp. 1961). See 54 Mich.L.Rev. 723 (1956).

. Md.Ann.Code, art. 16, § 197A (1957).

. Mass.Ann.Laws ch. 184A § 2 (1958). See Leach, Perpetuities, Legislation, Massachusetts Style, 67 Harv.L.Rev. 1349 (1954).

.N.Y. Real Prop.Law, McKinney’s Consol. Laws, c. 50, § 42-b; N.Y. Personal Property Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 41, § 11-a.

. There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether the cy pres doctrine should be limited to reforming age contingencies. Compare Leach, Perpetuities: Cy Pres on the March, 17 Vand.L. Rev. 1381, 1385 (1964), and Schuyler, Should the Rule Against Perpetuities Discard Its Vest? 56 Mieh.L.Rev. 683, 726 (1958). Since the case at bar involves an age contingency, it is unnecessary to enter into this controversy.