Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Garnett v. Clayton
Citations: 222 Ark. 324; 260 S.W.2d 441; 1953 Ark. LEXIS 784Docket: 5-135
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 22, 1953; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The legal dispute centers on whether Aubrey Boykin received a vested or contingent remainder in property under his grandmother Alice E. Garnett's will. Alice Garnett's will, executed on January 5, 1921, divided her estate among her three children and included a codicil from July 26, 1921, that specifically devised property in Hot Springs to her daughter, Rita Boykin, for life, with the remainder to Rita's children. After Alice's death in February 1922, Aubrey Boykin, Rita's son, inherited as her sole heir upon her death in December 1946. The appellees, who received the property under Rita's will, contested appellant Rose K. Garnett's claim to a one-third interest, which was based on the assertion that a contingent remainder passed to Aubrey. The trial court determined that Aubrey had a vested remainder, which, following his death, passed to Rita, thus affirming that she held the property in fee simple and could devise it to the appellees. The ruling referenced precedents indicating that a remainder becomes vested upon the birth of a child, not contingent on the parent's death, and highlighted prior case law supporting this interpretation. Chief Justice McCulloch in the Jenkins case emphasized a rule supported by all test writers, referencing the Restatement of Property. The appellant based her action on the Deener v. Watkins case, unaware that it had been overruled by Steele v. Robinson. The court agreed that the will and codicil should be construed together but rejected the notion that this construction could reveal an intention contrary to the clear language of the codicil. It was determined that the testatrix explicitly removed the property from the will's residuary clause and established a vested remainder for her grandson, Aubrey Boykin. Following Aubrey's death, the remainder vested in Rita Boykin, who then passed the title to the appellees through her probated will. The judgment was affirmed, with Justice George Rose Smith not participating.