DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27--------------------------------------------------
White v. Brown
DIR By: SunsetSailor
Date: January 27, 2011, 10:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: Mrs. Jessie Lide died on February 15, 1973 and left a
handwritten will. The will stated that her niece Sandra White
Perry was appointed as the executrix of her estate and that she
wished Evelyn White to have her home to life in and not to be
sold. She also left her personal property to Sandra White Perry
and again stated that her house was not to be sold. The twelve
nieces and nephews of the deceased are the defendants in this
action. Mrs. White, whose husband was the deceased’s brother,
and her daughter Sandra White Perry lived with Lide for some 25
years. After Sandra married and Mrs. White’s husband died, the
two women continued to live together until Lide’s death in 1973.
PROCEDURAL FACTS:
* Plaintiff filed this action to obtain construction of the
will, alleging that she is vested with a fee simple title to the
home
* Defendants argue that they will conveyed only a life
estate to Mrs. White, leaving the remainder to go to them under
our laws of intestate succession
* Chancellor: Held that the will unambiguously conveyed only
a life interest in the home to Mrs. White and refused to
consider extrinsic evidence concerning Mrs. Lide’s relationship
with her surviving relatives. Due to the debilitated condition
of the property, the chancellor ordered that the property be
sold and the profits be split among the beneficiaries.
* Court of Appeals: Affirmed
* Supreme Court: Reversed and the cause is remanded to the
chancery for such further proceedings as may be necessary,
consistent with this opinion. Costs are taxed against
appellees.
ISSUE: Did Mrs. Lide convey a life estate or a fee simple title
to her home to Mrs. White upon her death?
RULES:
* Rules of construction, always yielding to the cardinal
rule of the testator’s intent, must be employed as auxiliary
aids in the courts’ endeavor to ascertain the testator’s intent.
(p. 191)
* §64-501: Every grant or devise of real estate, or any
interest therein, shall pass all the estate or interest of the
grantor or devisor, unless the intent to pass a less estate or
interest shall appear by express terms, or be necessarily
implied in the terms of the instrument (p. 191)
* §32-301: A will…shall convey all the real estate belonging
to [the testator] or in which he had any interest at his
decease, unless a contrary intention appear by its words and
context (p. 191)
ANALYSIS:
* It is not clear whether Mrs. Like intended to convey a
life estate in the home or a fee interest with a restraint on
alienation
* Under our law, unless the “words and context” of Mrs.
Lide’s will clearly show her intention to convey only a life
estate to Mrs. White, the will should be construed as passing
the home to Mrs. White in fee.
CONCLUSION: Mrs. Lide’s will passed a fee simple absolute in
the home to Mrs. White. Her attempted restraint on alienation
must be declared void as inconsistent with the incidents and
nature of the estate devised and contrary to public policy.
Judgment is reversed and remanded to chancery court.
#Post#: 100--------------------------------------------------
Re: White v. Brown
DIR By: Mazeschenk
Date: June 5, 2015, 12:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for.
#Post#: 148--------------------------------------------------
Re: White v. Brown
DIR By: Dieselwas
Date: January 25, 2019, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is a very good detail.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1