Also known as: worthier title doctrine · doctrine of worthier title · worthier title · worthier title rule
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A common-law doctrine under which an inter vivos conveyance purporting to create a remainder in the grantor's heirs instead left a reversion in the grantor. The rule operated both as a mandatory rule of law and later as a presumption of intent favoring title by descent. Modern authorities abolish the doctrine in both forms so that language describing beneficiaries as the transferor's heirs or next of kin creates a remainder in those persons rather than a reversion in the transferor.
Willow West placed her farm in an irrevocable trust granting life estates to her two sons with the remainder to her next of kin. Years later one son sought to sell his life interest to a neighbor. Because the governing statute abolishes the doctrine of worthier title, the remainder interest passed directly to the class of next of kin rather than reverting to Willow's estate, allowing the life estate to remain fully alienable.
Wilma Wright conveyed land to a trustee reserving a life estate for herself and directing the remainder to her heirs at law. After her death a dispute arose over whether the remainder had vested in those heirs or remained in her estate. The court treated the limitation as creating a valid remainder in the heirs rather than a reversion in Wilma because the doctrine of worthier title no longer supplies a presumption that the grantor intended to retain the future interest.
The plaintiff established an irrevocable trust in 1923 under which she was to receive all of the income for her own use and benefit without the power to anticipate, alienate or charge the same. Upon her death the corpus was to pass as she appointed by will or if no appointment to her next of kin under District of Columbia intestate succession law. The plaintiff as settlor and life beneficiary later sought to modify the terms of this trust. The remaining beneficiaries consist of the settlor's heirs who cannot be ascertained until her death. In prior litigation the plaintiff argued that under the doctrine of worthier title she was the settlor and sole beneficiary so that the trust terms could be modified. The court of appeals rejected this argument and abolished the doctrine of worthier title as a rule of law or construction in the District of Columbia. The court of appeals indicated in dictum, however, that a guardian ad litem could be appointed to represent the interests of the unborn heirs so that the trust could be modified. Subsequently a guardian ad litem was appointed for the unborn heirs. Agreement was reached among the plaintiff, the existing heirs, and the guardian ad litem. All parties consented to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment except the Riggs National Bank, the trustee. The trustee objected that the court lacks authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for unborn persons without explicit statutory authority and that no such authority exists in the District of Columbia. The procedure was implemented at the suggestion of the court of appeals in the prior decision.
View caseNo. Under the Uniform Probate Code and the Restatement Third of Property the doctrine of worthier title is abolished both as a rule of law and as a rule of construction. Language describing beneficiaries as the transferor's heirs, next of kin, or similar terms therefore creates a remainder in those persons rather than a reversion in the transferor.
Supporting sources
The abolition removes both the mandatory rule and the presumption of intent. A court may consider extrinsic evidence of actual intent only if the governing instrument itself supplies an express reservation or condition. Bare use of heir language no longer triggers any inference favoring a reversion.
Supporting sources
Because no reversion arises by operation of the abolished doctrine, the life estate conveys marketable title free of any implied claim by the transferor's estate. Lenders and purchasers may rely on the plain terms of the instrument without concern that the future interest will return to the transferor.
Supporting sources
The testamentary branch of the doctrine was never recognized in American law and remains rejected. A devise to the testator's heirs creates a valid remainder in those heirs rather than a nullity that would cause the property to pass by intestacy.
Supporting sources