Brief Fact Summary. Action to partition real property in which Plaintiffs life tenant and remaindermen (Plaintiffs) sought review of the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant Remainderman (Defendant) in Plaintiff’s action that sought to sell devised land and distribute the proceeds.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a testator creates future interests that are contingent upon the takers’ surviving the life tenant and the triggering event is the death of the life tenant, then the testator creates alternative contingent remainders.
4 A remainder is vested when it is limited to identifiable persons and will become possessory immediately upon the expiration of the preceding estate; a remainder is contingent when it will take effect upon a dubious or uncertain event or to a dubious and uncertain person.
View Full Point of LawIssue. If a testator creates future interests that are contingent upon the takers’ surviving the life tenant and the triggering event is the death of the life tenant, then does the testator creates alternative contingent remainders.
Held. Yes. When a testator creates future interests that are contingent upon the takers’ surviving the life tenant and the triggering event is the death of the life tenant, then the testator creates alternative contingent remainders. The lower court properly found that the interests were contingent and not yet vested, and therefore the property cannot be sold. The class of lineal descendants does not close until the death of the life tenant. The takers cannot be known until the death of the life tenant. Therefore, we affirm the lower court ruling for Defendant.
Discussion. The contingency of the interests at issue in this case are based upon the happening of a future event, namely either the death or remarriage of Testator’s wife. Because neither of these events had yet occurred when the case was decided, the Court held that the interests were not yet vested and would not vest until such time as one of the events occurred. Because the interests were not yet vested, they could not be sold (since the takers of the interests were non-determinative at the time of the case decision).