Court Opinion

ID: 9534523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:40:35.216799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:11.584472
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
dissenting: The appellant and the majority opinion concede that the cómmon-law rule against perpetuities is in force and effect in this state, and further concede that the devise in paragraph V of the will creates contingencies which will not vest in interest within the period of time prescribed by that rule. Those concessions should terminate the litigation and require this court to affirm the judgment below.
While the majority opinion concedes that the devise in question violates the rule against perpetuities, the court proceeds to use the scissors on those provisions which violate the rule and “cut out” or in legal parlance “excise” the invalid portions and declare the remaining provisions of the devise to be valid and unaffected. In my judgment, the devise is wholly valid or wholly invalid. All the various doctrines advanced in the majority opinion are only a means to circumvent full application of the rule against perpetuities. I adhere to my dissent in In re Estate of Foster, 190 Kan. 498, 507, 376 P. 2d 784, 98 A. L. R. 2d 795, and cases cited therein, and I would affirm the judgment of the district court.