Court Opinion

ID: 9883590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:53:01.234699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.425782
License: Public Domain

WeinteauB', C. J.
(dissenting in part). I join in the majority opinion with respect to its determination of the trustee’s authority to invest. I dissent, however, from the view that the will provides for a per capita distribution among the issue of Siegfried, son of the testator.
As construed by the majority, the will provides for per stirpes distribution as to the children of testator with respect to income, and so also as to testator’s brothers and sisters both with respect to income and corpus, but the majority conclude the testator intended per capita distribution of the corpus to his lineal descendants. Thus with respect to Siegfried’s children, Otto and John, the division of principal is unequal both as to them and their respective issue. The amount to be received by each and his issue will depend upon the rate of birth, the cut-off date being the death of the life tenant. Otto and John must share equally with all of the descendants of both, and on one side three generations are presently on hand to participate. Further, the descendants of Otto and John who come into being after the' date fixed for distribution will be disinherited in the practical sense that they are excluded and lose the opportunity of participating with their brothers and sisters in the probable disposition their parents would make if the distribution were confined to Otto and John.
Why any man would want so arbitrary and fortuitous a treatment of his descendants escapes me. Especially is this so where the testator’s children were but 10 and 14 years of age when the will was drawn and hence the testator had no personal attachment to grandchildren or great-grandchildren. There is not a word in the will which breathes that purpose. The majority find that result in the use of the word “issue,” not because “issue” necessarily imports that meaning, but rather because case law arbitrarily ascribes to it that prima facie signification and hence we. should *493assume the draftsman intended the word in that sense, and this despite the conceded proposition that “issue” may also evidence the very opposite purpose, i. e., a per stirpes plan, depending upon the total context.
“Issue” was anciently construed to mean progeny to the remotest degree for reasons which no longer exist. For want of a concept protecting against lapse and assuring representation, the English judges, pressed with a choice of evils, i. e., inclusion of all generations per capita or the exclusion of the entire line where the ancestor died before accrual of his interest, chose the former. The dilemma was stated thus in Freeman v. Parsley, 3 Ves. Jr. 421, 30 Eng. Rep. 1085 (1797):
“In the common use of language as well as the application of the word ‘issue’ in wills and settlements it means all indefinitely. I very strongly suspect, that in applying- that to this will I am not acting according to the intention: but I do not know what enables me to eontroul it. If a medium could be found between a total exclusion of the grand-children, and the admission of them to share with the parents, the nearest objects of the testator, that would be nearer the intention; as by letting in those, whose parents were deceased, to take the share, the parents, if living, would have taken: but that construction would be setting up my own conjecture against the obvious sense of the words. When you put the question, whether he meant, all these grand-children should take with their parents, I think, he would say, he did not; yet if he was asked the other way, if it should go to the survivor, while there was a Defendant [grandchild], I am equally clear, he would not have given it to the survivor. They are therefore all entitled.”
Although the reason for the rule disappeared, it persisted with nothing to support it but judicial fiat. 3 Page, Wills (3rd ed. 1941), § 1079, pp. 282-83; Annotation 5 A. L. R. 195 (1920); 3 Restatement of Property (1940), § 303, comment on subsection (1), p. 1657. The cited comment reads in part:
“a. Historical rationale. In England a limitation in favor of the ‘issue of B’ or in favor of the ‘descendants of B’ was normally construed to be in favor of all the descendants of B in all generations (with certain restrictions as to legitimacy, see § 292) and these descendants took per capita, descendants having living parents *494who were also descendants sharing along with their parents. Whatever justification this construction may have in its origin, it is clear that its retention in the United States at the present time would cause serious deviations from the intent normally present in the mind of a conveyor limiting property to the ‘issue of B.’ The change from the English rule began with increased emphasis upon the constructional factors sufficient to cause ‘issue’ to be construed as substantially similar to ‘heirs of the body’ and hence to cause the ascertainment of the takers thereunder by reference to the statute of intestate distribution. Then the cases said that ‘a faint glimpse’ of a different intention would exclude the per capita and cause the per stirpes distribution. More recently the change has been frankly recognized and at the present time the rule stated in this Section represents the existing American law. This rule rests upon the fact that conveyors normally use ‘issue’ as substantially the equivalent of ‘heirs of the body,’ and seldom desire the inequalities between stirpes which were unavoidable under the earlier English rule.
The movement is decidedly away from the English approach, In re Mayhew’s Estate, 307 Pa. 84, 160 A. 724, 83 A. L. R. 149 (Sup. Ct. 1932); note, 7 Newark L. Rev. (1942), p. 211, but we have retained it notwithstanding that for many years our statutes of descent and distribution have embraced the per stirpes concept. The statutes reflect the natural wish of normal people, and that this is so is verified, I am sure, by the uniform experience of the bar. I cannot recall a single instance in my practice in which a testator chose the per capita approach to determine who would take if the designated beneficiaries should fail to survive the critical date.
By chapter 221, Laws of 1952 (N. J. S. 3A:3A-1 and 2), our Legislature provided with respect to the will of any person dying, or trusts created, after its effective date:
“Where under any will or trust provision is made for the benefit of issue and no contrary intention is expressed, such issue shall take per stirpes.”
We are thus left on our own in dealing with antecedent situations. I do not give retroactive effect to the statute, but I do find confirmation of the wisdom of those of our judicial decisions which went the greatest length to overcome the arbitrary rule of law, thereby to find and enforce *495the probable purpose of the testator. Cf. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Bridgham, 42 R. I. 161, 106 A. 149, 154, 5 A. L. R. 185 (Sup. Ct. 1919).
The antiquated interpretation of “issue” did not run an easy course. The courts, which might well have overruled the doctrine in one liberating stroke, chose rather to litter the field with exceptions and strained constructions, thereby confining the concept to cases where nothing could be seized upon to satisfy the more probable intent. Although its prima facie meaning remains progeny to the remotest degree sharing per capita> yet the cases add that “issue” is a word which lends itself very easily to the expression of representation and that the presumption which favors a per capita distribution yields to a very faint glimpse of a different intention. Van Houton v. Hall, 73 N. J. Eq. 348, 385-386 (E. & A. 1907); Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Graves, 139 N. J. Eq. 571, 583 (Ch. 1947); 57 Am. Jur., Wills, § 1305, p. 864. Curiously at war with the prima facie signification of “issue” is the oft-repeated proposition that if there is doubt the construction should favor per stirpes distribution because it accords with the more probable intent of the testator and the policy of the law. Stoutenburgh v. Moore, 37 N. J. Eq. 63, 71 (Ch. 1833), affirmed on opinion below, 38 N. J. Eq. 281 (E. & A. 1884); The New Jersey Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. Elsworth, 108 N. J. Eq. 229, 235 (Ch. 1931); Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Graves, supra (139 N. J. Eq., at page 582); Lawrence v. Westfield Trust Co., 1 N. J. Super. 423, 432 (Ch. Div. 1948); Clapp, Wills (1950), § 133, p. 315.
A per stirpes plan pervades the will before us. In the first subparagraph of the third paragraph the testator provided for income for his wife for life. Upon the contingency of remarriage, two-thirds of the income were directed to be paid “to and among my children living at the time of such re-marriage, and the lawful issue (if any) of any deceased child per stirpes and not per capita." The testator thus provided for equal treatment of his own children and of course foreclosed participation by a grandchild in the *496lifetime of its parent. In the same subparagraph he provided that if his children and their issue should predecease his wife, then said portion of income should be paid “to and among my brothers and sisters * * * and the lawful issue of any deceased Brother and Sister * * * per stirpes and not per capita.” Thus as to his brothers and sisters he provided per stirpes distribution.
The testator then provided for the distribution of the entire corpus “with all accumulations thereof” upon the death of his wife. He directed division into two parts, one for his son Siegfried, and the other for his daughter Edith. Again his will precluded participation by grandchildren, for if alive his children alone would take the prescribed interests. As to Siegfried, the gift was absolute but “if he be dead, then to his lawful issue if any.” As to his daughter Edith, he provided for a trust for life, the principal “with all accumulations” to go on her death “to and among her lawful issue, if any, and in default of such issue, then to * * * my son Siegfried if then living, and if he be dead, then to his lawful issue if any.” Thus, unlike Hoyt v. Orcutt, 1 N. J. 454 (1949), and Stickel v. Douglass, 7 N. J. 274 (1951), where the gift was ma.de directly to “issue,” here the issue of Siegfried take only by way of substitution for the deceased parent. In succeeding subparagraphs he provided that if neither his children nor their issue should take, then the principal shall go to his brothers and sisters, and here again he used language clearly per stirpes.
The majority, as I read the opinion, find no language unequivocally indicative of per capita treatment lineally beyond the testator’s children. Hor do the majority find that purpose in the ambiguous word “issue.” Rather, they find it in the circumstance that the testator spelled out per stirpes distribution in other portions of the will, and from that circumstance they conclude that where “issue” was unattended by words explicit of a per stirpes purpose, it should be inferred that a skilled draftsman (identity unknown) deliberately used “issue” in its arbitrary prima facie sense of per capita. It seems to me that this approach *497has the danger of yielding to the mere form of expression without weighing the content of the will. To put it another way, the interpretative process tends to end precisely where it should begin. The very question is whether “issue” was used in its prima, facie sense, and the inquiry cannot stop with the mere use of the word or with the fact that elsewhere the testator spoke more definitively. The very fact that he spoke more definitively elsewhere may well provide, as I think it does here, the “glimpse” of his per siirpes usage of “issue.”
As I have said, the will reveals a per stirpes plan at all points where the language is explicit. That fact provides ample evidence of per stirpes meaning for the unattended word “issue,” for several reasons.
The context of the will negates any affection for per capita distribution. As to his brothers and sisters, he plainly embraced the per stirpes approach. As to his children, he was equally plain with respect to income and the primary gifts of corpus. There is no apparent reason why he would want to deal differently with the issue of his own children and to apply to them an approach generally conceded to be contrary to natural impulse and contrary to his overall plan.
Further, any skilled draftsman, cognizant of the ambiguous meaning of “issue,” knowing that it yields easily to a glimpse of a per stirpes purpose, and that whenever there is doubt a per stirpes interpretation will be given, would not, in the face of those propositions, have used “issue” to execute a testator’s express direction for per capita distribution. Especially is this so when the draftsman elsewhere in the will expressly used “issue” in the per stirpes sense. Rather, he would have spelled out a per capita intent in unambiguous terms. Thus, in my view, the assumption by the majority that the draftsman was skilled and aware of the principles of construction—a springboard for the conclusion that “issue” was meant to mean “issue per capita”—would under the circumstances of this will militate against the inference they draw.
*498Hence the more reasonable approach in such circumstances is that where the draftsman has explicitly indicated a per stirpes usage- of “issue” in some parts of a will, it should be inferred that he used “issue” in that sense throughout, in the absence of a clear expression of a purpose to depart from that scheme of distribution. This thesis was in part the basis of decision in Dennis v. Dennis, 86 N. J. Eq. 423 (E. & A. 1916). There “issue” was specified in the will to mean per stirpes. In the codicil, however, “issue” was used without such express specification. The vice-chancellor, in an opinion “substantially” adopted by the Court of Errors and Appeals, said (p. 428) :
“It was strongly argued on principle and authority that when the testator used the word ‘issue’ in any particular sense in one part of the will, he must be held to have used the same word in the same sense in all other parts of the will. Unless there is something to indicate a contrary intention, I have no doubt of the proposition, and agree entirely with the argument made on behalf of Alfred L. P. Dennis on this point. And I find, as a matter of fact, that in this case the testator did use the word ‘issue’ in the same sense in every part of the will.”
See also Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Graves, supra (139 N. J. Eq., at pages 585-86).
I am satisfied the testator intended the normal, natural disposition per stirpes and hence conclude that the children of Siegfried alone should take, with representation by their descendants if either should die before the time fixed for distribution. I would modify the judgment accordingly.
Jacobs and Erancis, JJ., join in this opinion.
For affirmance—Justices Heher, Wachbneeld, Burling and Proctor—4.
For modification—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs and Erancis—3.