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

defendantappealsummary judgmenttrustcommon law
plaintiffdefendanttrialmotionsummary judgmentcommon lawmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Sefton v. Sefton, 206 Cal.App.4th 875, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6047, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7243
View Case »
Pierce v. Haverlah’s Estate, 428 S.W.2d 422
View Case »
Sears v. Coolidge, 329 Mass. 340, 108 N.E.2d 563
View Case »
Utley v. Graves, 258 F.Supp. 959
View Case »
Baker v. National Sav. & Trust Co., 181 F.2d 273, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 161
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Warren v. Albrecht, 213 Ill.App.3d 55, 571 N.E.2d 1179, 157 Ill.Dec. 160

Facts

James W. McGaughey devised land to John T. McGaughey as Trustee for his grandson, John Warren, with specific conditions regarding the distribution of the property upon John Warren's death. After McGaughey's death in 1943, John Warren's sons quitclaimed their interest in the land to him. In 1988, John Warren filed an action to quiet title, arguing that the devise violated the common law rule against perpetuities. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, leading to this appeal.

In 1988, John Warren, plaintiff, brought an action to quiet title claiming that James W. McGaughey's devise violated the common law rule against perpetuities.

Issue

Did the devise of land to John Warren violate the common law rule against perpetuities?

Did the devise of land to John Warren violate the common law rule against perpetuities?

Rule

The rule against perpetuities states that no interest is valid unless it must vest, if at all, no later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

The rule against perpetuities is a common law rule directed toward the remoteness of vesting.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the devise and determined that the interests created were contingent remainders that would vest at John Warren's death. The court found that the devise provided for various alternatives, ensuring that the estate would vest in someone or some class at the time of John Warren's death, thus not violating the rule against perpetuities.

We believe that a plain reading of the devise indicates that the estate vests at the time of John Warren's death.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the devise did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

The trial court was correct in its granting of defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding the devise did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the devise did not violate the rule against perpetuities, as it vested at the life tenant's death.

The trial court was correct in its granting of defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding the devise did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

You must be