225 N.Y. 305, 122 N.E. 221, 222
In January 1899, James J. Hanigan conveyed a house and lot in New York City to a trustee.1 The trust instrument directed the trustee to pay the grantor from the rents and profits the yearly sum of $1,500, with discretion to pay more, and to pay some debts and two existing mortgages on the property.2
The trustee received powers to mortgage the premises to satisfy liens or carry out the deed's provisions and to sell the property.3 Upon the grantor's death, the trustee was to convey the premises, if unsold, to the grantor's heirs at law or to pay them the unexpended balance of any sale proceeds.4 The trustee could also reconvey the premises to the grantor at any time to end the trust.5
At the time of trial in this action, the grantor remained alive, with two daughters as his sole descendants.6 In June 1902, one daughter, Mrs. Hughes, executed a deed conveying to her husband all her interest in the real estate.7
The plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, later recovered a judgment for more than $4,000 against Mr. and Mrs. Hughes.8 They brought this action to subject what they alleged to be an interest in the real property to the lien of their judgment.9 The Special Term ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the existence of a reachable interest, but the Appellate Division reached a contrary conclusion, leading to this appeal.10
Whether either judgment debtor has any interest in the land that can be reached by the plaintiffs' judgment?11
No. The 1899 conveyance by James J. Hanigan to the trustee created a trust. The direction to convey the premises to the heirs at law upon the grantor's death constitutes the superfluous expression of a duty imposed by law under Real Property Law § 102, leaving a reversion in the grantor rather than any remainder.14 At the time of trial the grantor remained alive.
His sole descendants were two daughters.15 Mrs. Hughes therefore held only an expectancy that could be barred by deed or will.16 The plaintiffs' subsequent judgment for more than $4,000 against the Hugheses could not attach to any interest in the land.17
Neither judgment debtor possesses any interest in the land reachable by the plaintiffs' judgment.18
Whether the 1899 trust deed created any remainder interest in the grantor's heirs or reserved only a reversion in the grantor?19
No. The 1899 trust deed directed the trustee upon the grantor's death to convey the premises if unsold to the heirs at law or to pay them the unexpended balance of sale proceeds. This language reserves only a reversion because the heirs mentioned are the heirs of the grantor rather than heirs of the holder of any particular estate. The trustee's power to reconvey the premises to the grantor at any time further confirms that no remainder vested in the daughters. Nothing in the surrounding circumstances suggests a purpose to vary the course of descent or distribution as it would be regulated by law.22
The 1899 trust deed reserved only a reversion in the grantor and created no remainder interest in the grantor's heirs.23