Also known as:worthier title doctrine · worthier title
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common-law rule under which an inter vivos conveyance purporting to create a remainder or other future interest in the grantor's heirs reserves a reversionary interest in the grantor instead. Modern statutes and restatements abolish the doctrine both as a rule of law and as a rule of construction so that language describing beneficiaries as the transferor's heirs or next of kin creates a remainder in those persons.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Conveyance to Next of Kin
Devon Drake executes an irrevocable trust conveying his farm to his two sons for their joint lives with remainder to his next of kin. After one son contracts to sell his life interest, the buyer seeks confirmation that the remainder stands as a valid interest in the described class. Because the governing statute abolishes the doctrine of worthier title, the language creates a remainder rather than a reversion in Devon Drake's estate, allowing the life interest to pass free of any retained future interest.
Inter Vivos Trust to Heirs
Dustin Donovan transfers real property into trust for his friend for life with remainder to Dustin Donovan's heirs. Years later Dustin Donovan attempts to revoke the trust on the theory that the limitation created only a reversion in himself. The court rejects the claim because the doctrine of worthier title no longer operates to convert the express remainder into a retained reversion.
In re Burchell’s Estate299 N.Y. 351, 361, 87 N.E.2d 293, 297 (1949)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does the doctrine of worthier title still operate in most jurisdictions?+
No. The Uniform Probate Code and the Restatement (Third) of Property abolish the doctrine both as a rule of law and as a rule of construction. Language in a governing instrument that describes beneficiaries as the transferor's heirs, next of kin, or similar terms no longer creates or presumptively creates a reversionary interest in the transferor.
Supporting sources
What practical consequence follows from abolition of the doctrine?+
A grantor who uses heir language in an inter vivos instrument now creates a remainder in the described class rather than retaining a reversion. This change removes an intent-defeating presumption, improves marketability of life estates, and prevents unexpected estate-tax inclusion of a reversion.
Supporting sources
How does the doctrine of worthier title differ from the Rule in Shelley's Case?+
The Rule in Shelley's Case converts a remainder in the life tenant's heirs into a remainder in the life tenant. The doctrine of worthier title instead converts a remainder in the grantor's own heirs into a reversion in the grantor. Both rules have been abolished in the overwhelming majority of states.
Supporting sources
Can surrounding circumstances still show an intent to retain a reversion after abolition?+
Yes. Abolition eliminates only the presumption created by the doctrine itself. A grantor may still reserve a reversion by express language or by other evidence of actual intent that a court may consider under ordinary rules of construction.
Supporting sources
Trusts and Estates Trusts and Future InterestsConstruction problems · Doctrine of Worthier TitleUBEFoundational