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

statutewill
plaintiffdefendantstatuteprecedentwilllease

Related Cases

Welch v. Crow, 206 P.3d 599, 2009 OK 20
View Case »
Dulin v. Bailey, 172 N.C. 608, 90 S.E. 689, L.R.A. 1917B,556
View Case »
Benjamin v. Cronan, 338 Mo. 1177, 93 S.W.2d 975
View Case »
Nunnenman v. Estate of Grubbs, 2010 Ark. App. 75, 374 S.W.3d 75
View Case »
Colton v. Colton, 127 U.S. 300, 8 S.Ct. 1164, 32 L.Ed. 138
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smiley v. Bailey, 59 Barb. 80

Facts

Austin Everett made a will on April 18, 1859, devising his real estate to his son Elmore for life, with the remainder to his grandchildren, including those born after his death. After Everett's death on January 26, 1860, Elmore had another son, and several grandchildren were born. Charles J. Smiley, one of the grandchildren, died before the life estate terminated, leading to a dispute over whether his interest passed to his father or to the surviving grandchildren.

The real estate of the testator consisted of a farm of about 150 acres of land in the town of Watertown, of the estimated value of $15,000, and was occupied by Elmore Everett, Sr., up to the time of his death. After his death, it was leased, by consent of all the parties in interest, to Nathan Talcott, from whom there is due the sum of $500 for rent; and the question submitted is whether by the decease of Charles J. Smiley without issue, before the termination of the life estate, his interest in the real estate descended to his father, Velora W. Smiley, by descent, or passed to the other grandchildren living at the time of the termination of the life estate.

Issue

The main issue was whether Charles J. Smiley took a vested or contingent remainder in the real estate under the terms of the will.

The question seems to turn upon the point whether Charles J. Smiley took a vested or contingent remainder.

Rule

A remainder is considered vested when there is a person in being who has an immediate right to possession upon the termination of the preceding estate, and it is contingent if the person or event upon which it is limited remains uncertain.

Although other questions are discussed, this is, after all, the only question in the case; and this question seems to be very clearly settled by the provisions of the Revised Statutes defining such estates, by which it is enacted that future estates 'are vested when there is a person in being who has an immediate right to the possession of the lands upon the ceasing of the intermediate or precedent estate. They are contingent whilst the person to whom, or the event upon which, they are limited to take effect, remains uncertain.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the will's language and the relevant statutes, concluding that the testator intended for the grandchildren to have a vested interest in the remainder upon their birth. The court noted that the death of Charles J. Smiley without issue did not divest his interest, which passed to his father as heir at law, as the condition for divestment was never fulfilled.

Under the provisions of this will, it is evident that the testator did not devise his lands to such of his grandchildren as should survive the tenant for life, but the lands were given to them as a class. If this is the correct interpretation of the will, it follows, I think, that each grandchild, the moment it came into existence, took a vested interest in the remainder in fee, subject to open and let in after born children; and that Charles J. Smiley having died without issue after the death of the testator, and in the lifetime of his father, the latter succeeds to the estate as heir at law.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of Velora W. Smiley, declaring that he was entitled to three-sevenths of the rent in arrear, with one-seventh in his own right and two-sevenths as guardian of his surviving children.

In my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to judgment declaring that three-sevenths of the rent in arrear belongs to the plaintiff, one-seventh in his own right, and two-sevenths as the general guardian of Clara B. and F. M. Smiley; and the balance to the defendant as general guardian of Richard F., Edward A. and Austin Everett.

Who won?

Velora W. Smiley prevailed in the case because the court determined that his deceased son, Charles J. Smiley, had a vested interest in the estate that descended to him as heir at law.

The plaintiff, Velora W. Smiley, claims one-seventh of the rent as the heir of his deceased son, Charles J. Smiley, and two-sevenths as guardian of his surviving children, Fred. E. and Harriet M. Smiley.

You must be