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

trialtrustwill
trialwill

Related Cases

Levin v. Levin, 60 So.3d 1116, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D997
View Case »
In re Estate of Couture, 166 N.H. 101, 89 A.3d 541
View Case »
Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882
View Case »
In re Estate of Mochty, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2018 WL 4927529
View Case »
In re Fritschi’s Estate, 60 Cal.2d 367, 384 P.2d 656, 33 Cal.Rptr. 264
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Trevitte v. Trevitte, Not Reported in S.W.2d, 1990 WL 73852

Facts

Jessie Trevitte died on April 22, 1980, leaving a will that devised a 60-acre tract of land to her son, John D. Trevitte, for his lifetime, with the remainder going to his children in equal shares upon his death. After her death, the real estate was sold, and the life estate was carved out from the proceeds, which were then placed in trust for John's children and any unknown, unborn, or adopted children. The children claimed entitlement to the interest accrued on the remainder, arguing that they had a vested interest in the proceeds.

Jessie Trevitte died on April 22, 1980, leaving a will that devised a 60-acre tract of land to her son, John D. Trevitte, for his lifetime, with the remainder going to his children in equal shares upon his death.

Issue

Whether the children of John D. Trevitte are entitled to the interest that has accrued on the remainder interest before John's death.

Whether the children of John D. Trevitte are entitled to the interest that has accrued on the remainder interest before John's death.

Rule

The intent of the testatrix controls the distribution of the remainder, and under class gift rules, the class of beneficiaries cannot close until the life tenant's death.

The intent of the testatrix controls the distribution of the remainder, and under class gift rules, the class of beneficiaries cannot close until the life tenant's death.

Analysis

The court applied the rule of class gifts, noting that while the children's interests are vested, the class of beneficiaries cannot close until John's death. The testatrix's intent was clear in that the remainder was given to the 'children' of John, which includes any future children, and thus the class remains open until John's passing.

The court applied the rule of class gifts, noting that while the children's interests are vested, the class of beneficiaries cannot close until John's death.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the distribution of the interest accrued on the remainder was premature and that the class of beneficiaries could not close until John's death.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the distribution of the interest accrued on the remainder was premature and that the class of beneficiaries could not close until John's death.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the estate of Jessie Trevitte, as the court upheld the trial court's ruling that the children are not entitled to the accrued interest until the class closes.

The prevailing party is the estate of Jessie Trevitte, as the court upheld the trial court's ruling that the children are not entitled to the accrued interest until the class closes.

You must be