Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

precedenttrustwillcondition precedent

Related Cases

Matter of Will of Corwith, 163 Misc.2d 831, 622 N.Y.S.2d 424

Facts

Charles F. Corwith died on October 18, 1981, leaving a will that created a testamentary trust for his wife, Grace M. Corwith, and provided for the distribution of the remainder to his nephew and nieces upon Grace's death. Grace survived Charles but later died. Charles, who was one of the remaindermen, survived the decedent but predeceased Grace without leaving any issue. The legal representative of Charles' estate argued that his remainder interest was vested, while other remaindermen contended it was contingent on his survival of Grace.

Grace M. Corwith survived the decedent but has since died. Charles L. Corwith, the decedent's nephew and one of the remaindermen of the Part B trust, survived the decedent but predeceased, without issue, Grace Corwith, the life beneficiary.

Issue

Did Charles L. Corwith's remainder interest in the testamentary trust vest upon the decedent's death, or was it contingent upon his survival of the life beneficiary, Grace M. Corwith?

Rule

A remainder interest may be vested or contingent, and a future estate subject to a condition precedent requires the remainderman to survive until the time of distribution to vest.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the will and determined that Charles' remainder interest was contingent upon his survival of the life beneficiary, Grace. The court noted that the will did not contain clear vesting language and that the provisions indicated a requirement for the remainderman to survive the life tenant. Since Charles predeceased Grace without issue, the court concluded that his interest never vested and thus passed intestate.

Because the court's examination of the will as a whole leads it to conclude that Charles' remainder interest was contingent on his surviving the beneficiary, the court need not consider the continued viability, if any, of the oft-criticized “divide-and-pay-over” rule.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Charles' contingent remainder interest did not vest and died with him, resulting in the interest passing to the estate of the decedent's wife, Grace.

The court accordingly concludes that Charles' interest in the trust was a remainder, subject to a condition precedent.

Who won?

The estate of Grace M. Corwith prevailed because the court found that Charles' remainder interest was contingent and did not vest, leading to intestate succession.

The court is aware of the constructional preference for avoiding intestacy, but may not rewrite the decedent's will in order to avoid intestacy.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Birdsong v. Jones, 222 Mo.App. 768, 8 S.W.2d 98

In re Gross’ Estate, 216 Cal.App.2d 563, 31 Cal.Rptr. 281

Estate of Mayberry v. Mayberry, 318 Ark. 588, 886 S.W.2d 627

Dana v. Gring, 374 Mass. 109, 371 N.E.2d 755

In re Mampe, 932 A.2d 954, 2007 PA Super 269