Court Opinion

ID: 9664149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:04:43.190516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.613097
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
It is clear that William H. Smith intended that the property be distributed to his children by right of representation if John H. Smith should die leaving no heirs of his body. This being the *433case, it seems to me that we do violence to the testator's intent if we reach a result that vests an interest in the property in one other than the blood line of William H. Smith. As the California court stated in the case of In re Rutan's Estate, 119 Cal.App.2d 592, 260 P.2d 111, 118:
"Moreover, as said in Re Estate of Boyd, 24 Cal.App.2d 287, 289-290, 74 P.2d 1049, at page 1050: 'It is well settled that where the provisions of a will are capable of two interpretations, under one of which those of blood of the testator will take, while under the other the property will go to strangers, the interpretation by which the property goes to those of blood of the testator is preferred. In re Estate of Hartson, 218 Cal. 536, 24 P.2d 171; In re Estate of Wilson, 65 Cal.App. 680, 225 P. 283.' "
The following quotation from V, American Law of Property, § 21.3, page 131 is applicable:
"In construing a donative transaction 'the court will have regard for the common desire of men to favor with their bounty, their own kin.' This preference will cause a pull in the direction of construing a gift to a stranger as contingent to increase the likelihood that the property will come back to blood relatives. In Sorrels v. McNally, the court said: 'The presumption that a legacy was intended to be vested applies with far greater force, where a testator is making provision for a child or grandchild, than where the gift is to a stranger or to a collateral relative.'
"In some cases this preference should work against a finding that an interest given to a blood relative is vested prior to the time set for enjoyment of the interest in possession because as a vested interest it may descend to the transferee's heirs, who may not be related by blood to the transferor, whereas if the interest is contingent on the survival of the initial transferee, his failure to meet the requirement of survival will normally cause the property to go back to the blood relatives of the transferor."
*434See also In re Murray's Will, 207 Minn. 7, 290 N.W. 312. This rule of preference for distribution to the blood line was recognized by Judge Campbell in his opinion for the court in Tillotson v. Carpenter, 61 S.D. 570, 250 N.W. 339.
I would hold that in the context of the will and the decree of distribution the words "to the children of said William H. Smith, deceased, by right of representation" imply a condition that such children, including grandchildren and great grandchildren, must survive until the termination of the prior life estates to take their respective shares of the property.