1942: JH Sybert’s will: “to Fred for life, then to the heirs of his body in FSA”
1950: Fred dies childless and intestate with his wife (Eunice Sybert) as sole heir
The issue is whether the Rule in Shelley’s case applies
Let’s try to figure out what the arguments are in this case between Fred’s wife and sole heir, Eunice, and his two brothers who claim as the heirs of the Testator, JH Sybert.
What is Eunice Sybert’s argument as the widow and sole heir of Fred Sybert?
How does she construe the will of JH Sybert?
She says the Rule in Shelley’s case applies and therefore Fred took both a Life Estate and a vested remainder in Fee Simple Absolute (the attempt to create a contingent remainder in Fred’s heirs resulted in a vested remainder to Fred—Fee Tail not recognized).
It is as though the will said “to Fred for life, remainder to Fred and his heirs.”
Fred: Life Estate
Fred: Vested Remainder in FSA
Merger applies and Fred took a Fee Simple Absolute which his wife inherited as Fred’s sole heir.
Fred’s brothers argue that the Rule doesn’t apply and that therefore the state of the title under the will was:
Fred: Life Estate
Fred’s heirs of his body (surviving issue of Fred): contingent remainder
JH Sybert: Reversion
The contingent remainder failed and the
brothers take the reversion as the heirs of the Testator, JH Sybert. Eunice, Fred's sole heir, takes nothing.
The Court says the Rule in Shelley’s case applies (p. 325 “The language in the will in this case brings it squarely within the rule, and whether or not the testator so intended is immaterial.”)
The Rule is a Rule of Law not a rule of construction. It applies without regard to the intent of the grantor or testator.
So, Fred died owning a Fee Simple Absolute and his sole heir (Eunice) inherits the Fee.
