Facts

Mary Ann Taylor Ramage executed her will in 1914 and died in 1915, survived by her husband Frank, son Albert, and various grandchildren. Her daughter Alma had predeceased her, leaving five children: Frank, Bob, Charlie, Grace, and Anna. The will devised approximately 130 acres to Alma's children (the Templeton branch) and a separate 160-acre tract to her husband Frank for life, then to son Albert for life, then to Albert's children for life, and at their deaths, their interests to be divided among their children.

Albert had nine children, five of whom survived him and had children, while four died childless. The will's provision creating a class gift to the great-grandchildren violated the rule against perpetuities because the class could remain open and expand beyond the permissible period.

In a judicial proceeding, the trial judge determined the violation and, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B), reformed the will by inserting a savings clause to preserve the testator's intent, limiting the life estates to Albert's children alive at the testator's death and directing shares of childless grandchildren to augment those with children, resulting in the 160-acre tract passing one-fifth to each set of great-grandchildren from the five lines with issue.

Appellants, heirs-at-law from the Templeton branch, challenged this reformation, arguing the gift to great-grandchildren was void, causing reversion to the testator's heirs-at-law, and sought intestate distribution of the entire tract or at least the four-ninths interests from childless grandchildren. Respondents, descendants from the Ramage branch, defended the reformation to keep the property within Albert's descendants.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

Does the will's provision devising the 160-acre tract to Albert's great-grandchildren violate the rule against perpetuities?

Legal Rule

No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, no later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. For class gifts that remain open, they are treated as nonvested for perpetuity purposes until the class closes.

Rule Analysis

The trial judge determined that the gift over to the testator's great-grandchildren was a class gift that could continue to expand during the lifetimes of the grandchildren, rendering it nonvested under the rule against perpetuities because the class remained open after the gift was made.

Both parties conceded this violation, as determined by the trial judge, since the interest might not vest within the required period following a life in being at the testator's death.

Conclusion

Yes, the provision violates the rule against perpetuities, as conceded by the parties.

Issue #2

Issue

Should the court void the gift over to the great-grandchildren and allow reversion to the testator's heirs-at-law, or reform the will under S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B)?

Legal Rule

If a nonvested interest created before July 1, 1987, violates the rule against perpetuities, the court shall reform the disposition by inserting a savings clause that most closely preserves the transferor's plan of distribution and brings it within the rule's limits. The law abhors forfeiture and intestacy, favoring validity of the will.

Rule Analysis

The trial judge found the testator intended to benefit both sides of her family equally, with the 160-acre tract to remain in the Ramage branch through successive life estates to Albert, his children, and then their children.

Appellants argued for voiding the gift, leading to reversion of the remainder to heirs-at-law, including the Templeton branch, especially for the shares of childless grandchildren.

The statute mandates reformation to avoid forfeiture, and voiding the gift would contradict the testator's intent to keep the property within the Ramage descendants, as evidenced by equal division of other property and the will's structure.

Conclusion

No, the court should not void the gift; instead, it must reform the will by inserting a savings clause to preserve the testator's intent and comply with the rule against perpetuities.

Issue #3

Issue

What is the appropriate savings clause to insert to cure the perpetuities violation while preserving the testator's intent?

Legal Rule

The savings clause must preserve most closely the transferor's plan of distribution, ensuring interests vest within the perpetuities period, and address any floating interests to avoid abeyance of title.

Rule Analysis

The trial judge inserted a clause limiting life estates to Albert's children alive at the testator's death, making those grandchildren the measuring lives, and ordered augmentation of shares for lines with children by the shares of childless grandchildren.

This cured the violation but left the four-ninths interests of childless grandchildren floating, as title cannot be in abeyance.

To fully effectuate the intent to benefit only the Ramage branch and prevent reversion, the clause was modified to explicitly divide the interests of childless children among those with children (i.e., 'or if any of Albert Ramage's children die childless, his or her interest in default be divided among those who have children'), resulting in one-fifth shares to each set of great-grandchildren from the five lines with issue.

Conclusion

The appropriate savings clause limits the devise to Albert's children alive at the testator's death for life, with remainders to their children, and divides interests of childless children among those with children, thus affirming the trial judge's order as modified.