Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

appealtrustwillappellant
willappellant

Related Cases

In re Chervitz Trust, 198 S.W.3d 658
View Case »
In re Price’s Estate, 375 S.W.2d 900
View Case »
McQuone v. Brown, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2001 WL 1447232
View Case »
Melican v. Parker, 283 Ga. 253, 657 S.E.2d 234, 08 FCDR 423
View Case »
McQuone v. Brown, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2001 WL 1447232
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Perkins v. Iglehart, 183 Md. 520, 39 A.2d 672

Facts

Lucy James Dun died in 1921, leaving a will that provided for various bequests, including a residuary estate to be held in trust for her son, William James Rucker, and subsequently for his widow and children. Rucker died in 1941 without issue, and the executors of his estate contested the validity of the bequests to his widow and descendants, arguing they violated the rule against perpetuities. The case was brought to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for construction of the will, leading to multiple appeals.

Mrs. Dun had been twice married. Her first husband was Major William A. Rucker. William James Rucker was the son of this marriage.

Issue

Did the bequests in Lucy James Dun's will to the widow and descendants of her son violate the rule against perpetuities?

It is contended by the Rucker executors that the two gifts over, each to take effect from and after the death or remarriage of the son's widow, violate the rule against perpetuities.

Rule

The rule against perpetuities states that no interest is valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

The rule is applicable to limitations of either legal or equitable estates in either real or personal property.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the will and the timing of the bequests, concluding that the gifts to the widow and descendants of Rucker could potentially fail to vest within the required period. The court emphasized that the bequests were contingent upon events that might not occur within the prescribed time frame, thus rendering them void under the rule against perpetuities.

The contention of the Rucker executors is that the widow of the son of the testatrix might have been born after the death of the testatrix, and might have lived longer than 21 years and the period allowed for gestation after the death of the son.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's decree and held that the bequests to the widow and descendants of William James Rucker were void due to their violation of the rule against perpetuities, resulting in a partial intestacy of the one-third of the residuary estate.

We therefore hold that the bequests of the one-third of the residue of the estate, after the death or remarriage of the widow, are too remote and are void for that reason.

Who won?

The appellants, W. Allan Perkins and George Pausch, prevailed in the case as the court ruled in their favor regarding the invalidity of the bequests.

The appellants in Nos. 5 and 6 are, respectively, a first cousin of William J. Rucker on his father's side, and the executor of a similar first cousin who has died since William J. Rucker's death.

You must be