An investor dies survived by her husband, two daughters, and two grandchildren (the children of her deceased son). She was the sole record owner of a piece of property located in a jurisdiction which has abolished the doctrine of the destructibility of contingent remainders. Her will, which was executed when all three of her children were alive, leaves the property “to my husband for life, then to my children. However, if any one of my children predeceases my husband, then to his or her issue.” The residuary legatee is the landowner’s sister. The husband renounced his interest in the property in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction shortly after the investor’s death.
What is the state of the title to the property after the husband’s renunciation?
A. The sister, the investor’s residuary legatee, takes a life estate, and the doctor, the dentist, the golfer and the gymnist have a vested remainder in equal shares.
B. The sister, the investor’s residuary legatee, takes a life estate; the two daughters each have an undivided one-third interest in a vested remainder; and, the two grandchildren each have an undivided one-sixth interest in a vested remainder.
C. The two daughters and the two grandchildren are tenants in common in equal shares.
D. The two daughters each have an undivided one-third interest, and the two grandchildren each have an undivided one-sixth interest, all as tenants in common.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
D, seeems correct, but I haven’t studied property yet.
Answer D is correct. It correctly states that there is no remaining life estate, and correctly divides the interests of the issue of the investor. Under the doctrine of acceleration, the renunciation of a life estate causes the remainder to vest immediately, at least in the case of a vested remainder. The case is treated as though the life tenant had predeceased the decedent. In this case, the investor’s will created a class gift of a vested remainder in her children, with its own anti-lapse provision detailing what should happen with each child’s share if the child predeceased the investor’s husband but had surviving issue. The property should pass immediately according to the terms of the investor’s will, to her surviving daughters and her deceased son’s children. The only question is what interest each of the surviving daughters and grandchildren should take. The usual rule, and the disposition which seems to be called for by the terms of this will, is that the surviving daughters should each take a one-third share and the two grandchildren should share the deceased son’s one-third share. The grandchildren should not be brought into the class and share equally with their aunts. If that were the case, the share of each of the surviving daughters would depend on how many children survived their predeceased sibling(s) and the actual distribution of the estate would then be markedly different from what the testatrix seems to have intended from the terms of her will. Therefore, A, B, and C are incorrect.
B
D.
D
c
ok I am stuck between B and D. but residuary legatee takes if no one else can take like the remainder of whatever is left. if I was guessing I would pick D.
I had this question before and I can’t remember the answer! I can’t remember what happens when a person renounces his interest. I am going with B–it’s definitely B or D, simply because, what is A even talking about? And the two daughters and two grandchildren could not have equal shares (in answer C) because the two grandchildren would equally share in their father’s 1/3 interest (per stirpes), while the daughters would equally take 1/3 share each (per capita). I’m just not sure if the residuary legatee takes a life estate or the estate automatically goes to the owners of the remainder. But (after all of that), I’m going with B.