Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A person designated in a will to receive real or personal property by devise. The term encompasses both specific and residuary takers and extends to class members or appointees under powers of appointment when the will so provides.
Diane Dawson's will left her ranch to her nephew Derek Douglas. Before her death Diane gave Derek $200,000 and signed a writing stating the money was to be deducted from the devise. The probate court treats the cash transfer as a partial satisfaction, so Derek receives the ranch minus the $200,000 credit.
Daphne Doyle's will devised her office building to her daughter Destiny Davis. The building was encumbered by a recorded mortgage that Daphne had granted during life. After Daphne's death the mortgagee foreclosed and the purchaser took title free of Destiny's interest because the devisee received the property subject to the lien.
Daniel Diaz's will left his estate to his caregiver. The caregiver prevented Daniel from executing a new will favoring his sister by fraud. A court imposed a constructive trust requiring the caregiver to hold the property for the sister, the intended devisee.
Mary Sheldon Lyon executed a will in 1943 that left almost her entire estate to defendant Father Divine, leader of a religious cult, two corporate defendants connected with the cult, and individual defendant Patience Budd, an active follower of Father Divine. Plaintiffs, first cousins of the decedent but not her distributees, allege that after making this will the decedent on several occasions expressed a desire and determination to revoke it and to execute a new will under which plaintiffs would receive a substantial portion of the estate. Shortly prior to her death the decedent had attorneys draft a new will naming plaintiffs as legatees for legacies totaling approximately $350,000. By means of false representations, undue influence, and physical force, defendants prevented the decedent from executing that new will. Shortly before her death in October 1946, the decedent again expressed her determination to execute the proposed new will favoring plaintiffs, whereupon defendants conspired to kill and did kill her by means of a surgical operation performed by a doctor engaged without the consent or knowledge of any relatives. After the decedent’s death the 1943 will was contested by distributees and probated under a compromise agreement to which plaintiffs were not parties and under which the defendants received a large sum from the estate. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that defendants hold the property as constructive trustees for plaintiffs. The complaint was dismissed for insufficiency on a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the Court of Appeals took the case for review.
View caseDavid Dawson's will devised his house to his friend but orally directed the friend to hold it for a charity. The friend took legal title yet a court enforced the oral trust against the devisee because the friend had accepted the property on those terms.
The will on its face contained a residuary bequest to the defendant that expressly required him to distribute all the property bequeathed to him. It granted him no discretion on whether to distribute it and allowed discretion only as to the manner of distribution pursuant to the testatrix's intentions. No other written instrument was signed by the testatrix and made part of the will by reference. Before, at the time of, and after the execution of the will, the testatrix orally made known to the defendant her wish and intention that the residue should be disposed of and distributed by him as executor for charitable uses and purposes according to his discretion and judgment. She directed him to do so while especially expressing her desires as to the objects to be preferred. The defendant stated these oral communications in his answer, and the plaintiffs admitted the facts to be true. The matter was presented to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on the facts agreed by the parties, with the court entering a decree for the plaintiffs.
View caseDerek Douglas's will devised land to a friend on condition that the friend never develop it. The court invalidated the condition as contrary to public policy and allowed the devisee to take the land free of the restriction.
In 1902, a trust indenture established Kingsbury Place as a private subdivision in St. Louis, with covenants requiring maintenance as desirable residence property of the highest class. The indenture empowers trustees and property owners to enforce its provisions against encroachment or injury. Except for one vacant lot, the subdivision features spacious two and three-story homes used exclusively as private residences. Louise Woodruff Johnston, owner of the house at #4 Kingsbury Place, died on January 14, 1973. Her will directed the executor, Mercantile Trust Co., to cause the home to be razed and the land sold, with proceeds transferred to the residue of the estate. Following Johnston's death, neighboring property owners and trustees for the Kingsbury Place Subdivision filed suit against the executor seeking an injunction to prevent demolition of the house. The plaintiffs contended that razing the home would adversely affect their property rights and the community. During trial, uncontradicted testimony established that the current value of the house and land totaled $40,000, while the empty lot would fetch no more than $5,000 after $4,350 in demolition costs. The St. Louis Commission on Landmarks and Urban Design had designated Kingsbury Place as a city landmark due to its architectural significance. Witnesses testified that demolition would depreciate adjoining property values by an estimated $10,000 and create a break in the urban design continuity. The trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and ruled against the plaintiffs on all issues. The plaintiffs then appealed the denial of their petition to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
View caseDestiny Davis killed her uncle and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The uncle's will had devised property to her. The court imposed a constructive trust so the property passed as though Destiny had predeceased the testator.
Howard Mahoney died intestate on May 6, 1961, of gunshot wounds. His wife, Charlotte Mahoney, was tried for the murder of Howard Mahoney in the Addison County Court and was convicted by jury of the crime of manslaughter in March, 1962. She is presently serving a sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 15 years at the Women’s Reformatory in Rutland. Howard Mahoney left no issue, and was survived by his wife and his father and mother. His father, Mark Mahoney, was appointed administrator of his estate which at the present time amounts to $3,885.89. After due notice and hearing, the Probate Court for the District of Franklin entered a judgment order decreeing the residue of the Estate of Howard Mahoney, in equal shares, to the father and mother of the decedent. An appeal from the judgment order and decree has been taken here by the appellant widow. The cause now before us is here on a direct appeal from the Probate Court. Findings of fact were made below from which it appears that the judgment of the probate court decreeing the estate of Howard Mahoney to his parents, rather than to his widow, was based upon a finding of the felonious killing of her husband by Mrs. Mahoney. The Probate Court used the record of the conviction of the appellant for manslaughter for its determination that the appellant had feloniously killed her husband. In Vermont, an indictment for murder can result in a jury conviction on either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The legislature has provided the sentences that may be passed upon a person convicted of manslaughter, but provides no definition of that offense, nor any statutory distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
View caseYes. Under the modern rule the devisee receives the property subject to any recorded lien unless the will expressly directs exoneration from estate assets.
Supporting sources
The slayer is treated as having predeceased the testator and cannot take under the will. Courts impose a constructive trust to prevent the killer from profiting from the crime.
Supporting sources
Only when the will provides for deduction, the testator declares in a contemporaneous writing that the gift satisfies the devise, or the devisee acknowledges the satisfaction in writing.
Supporting sources
Yes. Equity imposes a constructive trust on the devisee when fraud, duress, or undue influence prevents the testator from revoking the existing will or making a new one.
Supporting sources
The term includes class members, individuals who predecease the testator, and appointees under a power of appointment exercised by the will.
Supporting sources
…cases it has been held that such trusts may be enforced against the heirs or next of kin of the testator, as well as against the devisee. Shadwell, V. C., in Podmore v. Gunning , 5 Sim. 485, and 7 Sim. 644. Chatterton, V. C., in Riordan v. Banon , Ir. R. 10 Eq. 469. Hall, V. C., in Fleetwood's case , 15 Ch. D. 594. But…