Johnson v. Waldrop

Decision Date15 July 1971
Docket NumberNo. 19253,19253
Citation256 S.C. 372,182 S.E.2d 730
PartiesBenjamin E. JOHNSON, Administrator C. T. A. of the Estate of E. P. Waldrop, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leona J. WALDROP et al., Defendants, Of whom Donald D. Waldrop, Charles Waldrop and Mamie Waldrop Waldrep are, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Robert L. Waldrep, Jr., Anderson, and McDonald, Cox & Turner, Greenville, for defendants-appellants.

Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for plaintiff-respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by the administrator C. T. A. of the Estate of the late E. P. Waldrop, seeking a construction of his Last Will and Testament.

The sole question presented to this court on appeal is whether his Will conveyed a fee simple interest to his wife. The Will reads as follows:

'July 31, 1945

'This is my last will. I give and bequeath and devise to my wife, Leona J. Waldrop, in complete perfect ownership, all my rights and property of every nature, whether real, personal or mixed, wherever situated, appointing her executrix without bond. Upon the death of my wife it is to be divided equally between my sister Mrs. Mamie Waldrop Waldrep and my brother Ernest L. Waldrop.'

The issues were tried before the Master in Equity for Greenville county.

The Master issued his report finding that the testator intended that his widow, Mrs. Leona J. Waldrop, have a life estate coupled with power to dispose and consume for her maintenance, welfare, and upkeep. The Master also found that the intent of the testator was to leave the remainder to the two named beneficiaries, his brother and sister.

The plaintiff argued exceptions to the Master's report, directed primarily toward the finding of the Master that it was the intention of the testator to vest in his widow a life estate coupled with power to dispose and consume. The County Judge issued his order rejecting the recommendations of the Master and finding that it was the intention of the testator to vest in the widow, Mrs. Leona Waldrop, a fee simple interest in his estate. This appeal followed.

In determining whether the testator intended to leave a fee simple interest to his wife we are guided by the following:

'It is elementary that the cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the testator unless same contravenes some well-settled rule of law or public policy.' People National Bank of Greenville v. Harrison et al., 198 S.C. 457, 18 S.E.2d 1 (1941).

'In the construction of a will all of the provisions are to be considered and given effect so far as possible, and the true intent gathered from the four corners of the instrument.' Rogers v. Rogers, 221 S.C. 360, 70 S.E.2d 637 (1952) citing Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68, 8 L.Ed. 322 (1832).

An analysis of the provisions of the Will compels us to find, as did the Master, that E. P. Waldrop intended to convey to his wife a life estate, with complete power to dispose and consume, and to convey the remainder to his brother and sister. The testator used two sentences to dispose of his property. If the second sentence naming his brother and sister had not been added there could be no debate; we must...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Starratt v. Morse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • October 15, 1971
    ...* are at least as clear in expressing that implied intention as the words in which the interest is given." Johnson, Admr. v. Waldrop et al., S.C., 182 S.E.2d 730, 731 (1971), quoting with approval from Walker v. Alverson, 87 S.C. 55, 68 S.E. 966 (1910) and Schroder v. Antipas, 215 S.C. 552,......
  • Wise v. Poston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1984
    ...not of doubtful import. The intent of the testator to limit the devise is manifested clearly and unmistakably. See Johnson v. Waldrop, 256 S.C. 372, 182 S.E.2d 730 (1971). Even though it is not necessary to use words of limitation such as "to them, their heirs and assigns forever" to convey......
  • Grant v. Nationstar Mortg.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 2023
    ... ... is particularly true when a will explicitly carves out a life ... estate interest with the power of disposition. See ... Johnson v. Waldrop, 256 S.C. 372, 375, 182 S.E.2d 730, ... 731 (1971) (finding that "a life estate, with the ... complete power to dispose and ... ...
  • Blackmon v. Weaver, 4030.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 17, 2005
    ...as a life estate with the power of disposition. Our courts have previously recognized such an interest. See Johnson v. Waldrop, 256 S.C. 372, 374-76, 182 S.E.2d 730, 731 (1971) (finding a life estate with a complete power to dispose and consume); Thomason v. Hellams, 233 S.C. 11, 15, 103 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Lady Bird Deed: Has the Remainderman Interest Nested or Vested?
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 35-1, July 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...could live there for her life, and then if she chose to give it up, then it would go to the children. Id. at 255. [35] Johnson v. Waldrop, 256 S.C. 372, 372 (1971). [36] Id. at 374. [37] See Id. at 376. [38] See generally Chris Burti, Reserved Powers of Appointment, Newsletter and Legal Mem......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT