{"id":2439,"date":"2014-09-18T16:08:18","date_gmt":"2014-09-18T20:08:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=2439"},"modified":"2015-05-26T15:58:59","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T19:58:59","slug":"rule-perpetuity-measuring-life-ambiguity-1930-will","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=2439","title":{"rendered":"Rule Against Perpetuity and Measuring Lives"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Superior Court, sitting <em>en banc<\/em>, has reversed the Orphans&#8217; Court of Delaware county in deciding which was the measuring life for purposes of the rule against perpetuities as applied to a 1931 trust under the will of George McFadden.\u00a0 Finding that the language of the trust was ambiguous, the Superior Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided that the intent of the testator was to perpetuate the trust for as long as then-current law provided.\u00a0 (The law had changed in 1929.)\u00a0 The language in question is:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;for the period of twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of the children and issue of deceased children of mine living at the time of my death.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Both the Orphans&#8217; Court and the Superior Court found the language to be ambiguous.\u00a0 The Orphans&#8217; Court concluded that a grandchild could only be a measuring life if the grandchild&#8217;s parent (a child of the testator) had predeceased the testator.\u00a0 All of the testator&#8217;s children were alive at his death (although he had two living grandchildren), so the measuring life was the last to die of the testator&#8217;s children.\u00a0 The Superior Court came to the opposite conclusion, meaning the last to die of the grandchildren was the measuring life.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-E02006-14o%20-%201019474442625266.pdf\"><em>Estate of George McFadden<\/em>, 2014 PA Super 203 (Super. 2014) (Opinion by Wecht, J., joined by Ford Elliott, P.J.E., Bowes, J., Allen, J., Ott, J., and Stabile, J)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The dissent in the case found the language to be unambiguous, because only issue of deceased children could be measuring lives, and all children survived the testator.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-E02006-14do%20-%201019474442625270.pdf\"><em>Estate of George McFadden, <\/em>2014 PA Super 203 (Super. 2014) (Dissent by Shogan, J., joined by Bender, P.J.E. and Jenkins, J.)<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The original three-judge panel of the Superior Court had issued an opinion on December 31, 2013, affirming the Orphans&#8217; Court (the opinion of the Orphans&#8217; Court is attached to the opinion of the Superior Court).\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A21016-13m.pdf?cb=1\"><em>Estate of George McFadden<\/em>, No. 2872 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Opinion by Shogan, J., joined by Colville, J.; <\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A21016-13dm.pdf?cb=1\">Wecht dissenting)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Superior Court, sitting en banc, has reversed the Orphans&#8217; Court of Delaware county in deciding which was the measuring life for purposes of the rule against perpetuities as applied to a 1931 trust under the will of George McFadden.\u00a0 &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=2439\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[296],"class_list":["post-2439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinions","tag-rule-against-perpetuities","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2439"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2446,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2439\/revisions\/2446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}