Veach v. Veach
| Decision Date | 12 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16526. |
| Parties | VEACH et al. v. VEACH et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The question of whether a vested or contingent remainder is created by a provision of a will must be decided under the law of the State where the real property devised is situated.
2. Under the law of Tennessee, where the property involved in this case is located, the estate in remainder was contingent and not vested.
Grady A. Veach, a resident of Cobb County, and Julia Veach Stewart a resident of Bartow County, as executors under the will of George A. Veach, and as trustees under the fourth item of the will, brought a petition in Bartow Superior Court for a construction of item 4 of the will, which is as follows
It is alleged: George A. Veach died a resident of Bartow County on June 28, 1936. The petitioners are the only executors who are now acting under the will. All requirements of the will and of law have been complied with so that the provisions of item 4 of the will have become operative, and assets are now held by the petitioners under the terms and conditions of this item. The property described in the item has been held by the petitioners for a period in excess of ten years. The testator's widow, Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, is still living. The trustees have not considered it necessary, to save the estate from serious loss, to terminate the trust.
George A. Veach left certain heirs at law, as follows: (a) His widow, Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, who remains in life. (b) His children, Grady A. Veach, Julia Veach Stewart, Mrs. Richard W. Milner, and Mrs. Milton P. Gaines, all of whom remain in life. (c) A child, J. M. Veach, who died on January 11, 1947, leaving his wife, Marguerite Dyar Veach, as his sole heir at law. Copy of the will of J. M. Veach is attached to the petition, and it appears that J. M. Veach willed all of his property, except for one cash bequest, to his wife. (d) One child of George A. Veach predeceased him, namely E. D. Veach. He left a will under which his wife, Mrs. Lillian Veach, has qualified as sole executrix. His former wife is now Mrs. G. C. Kirkley. After enumerating certain bequests, the testator provided that the residue of his estate should be held together for the support of his widow and minor children during his wife's life or widowhood, to be distributed among his children and descendants of children on the remarriage or death of his wife. Three children survive E. D. Veach: George William Veach, Helen Veach Burke, and E. B. Veach. One child, Harold Veach, outlived George A. Veach, but died in January, 1946, leaving no will, and there has been no administration upon his estate. His sole heirs at law are his mother, Mrs. G. C. Kirkley, and his brothers and sister.
It is further shown: During 1947 the petitioners distributed income at the rate of $200 per month to Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, as is clearly provided in the will. They have been uncertain as to the distribution of the shares that might be claimed by the representatives of E. D. Veach and J. M. Veach, and since the death of J. M. Veach they have not paid out any other income or corpus from the trust. Demands have been made upon them for the payment of benefits provided under item 4 of the will by various parties interested under the rights of J. M. Veach and E. D. Veach. It is necessary for the petitioners to have a declaration of rights and legal relations in respect to this item of the will, and to obtain direction in distributing income and corpus from the trust. It is prayed that the provisions of item 4 be construed, and direction be given as to the distribution of the income and corpus of the trust estate created under the item.
Mrs. Marguerite Dyar Veach, in answer to the petition, contended that her deceased husband, J. M. Veach, had a vested interest in the income and corpus of the trust estate under the provisions of the will of his father, George A. Veach, with the right to possession of the corpus of the estate postponed until the death of Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach and the expiration of the trust. She averred that, as sole heir at law of J. M. Veach, and as executrix and devisee and legatee under his will, she now owns the share of J. M. Veach in the corpus of the trust, an undivided one-sixth interest therein, and is entitled to receive the same proportion of income derived therefrom during the continuance of the trust as was received by J. M. Veach during his lifetime.
Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, Grady A. Veach, Julia Veach Stewart, Mrs. Richard W. Milner, Mrs. Milton P. Gaines, George William Veach, and Mrs. G. C.
Kirkley (individually and as executrix under the will of E. D. Veach), in their answer, and Helen Veach Burke and Esbun B. Veach, in an almost identical answer contended that upon the death of J. M. Veach the income and corpus of the trust which would have gone to him under item 4 of the will of George A. Veach did not pass to his estate or to his widow; and that the income under the will of George A. Veach which would have gone to E. D. Veach, had he survived his father, passed to the children of E. D. Veach.
The parties entered into a stipulation that all questions of law and fact would be heard and determined by the judge without the intervention of a jury. On the trial Mrs. Marguerite Dyar Veach offered no testimony. The other parties offered testimony of a qualified attorney of the State of Tennessee to prove the law of that State in regard to the construction of a provision of a will devising property to certain persons as a class under enumerated circumstances. They also offered testimony tending to show that it was the intention of the testator that his property be kept 'in the blood' and that his daughters-in-law and sons-in-law should not share in his estate.
The trial judge took the case under advisement, and before his decision was announced, additional pleadings were filed in regard to the manner in which the income of the trust estate had been distributed.
The trial judge on October 1, 1948, entered a decree in which he held: (1) The laws and statutes of Georgia apply in the construction of item 4 of the well. (2) The interest devised to J. M. Veach, deceased, was not a vested interest, but was a contingent interest, and his widow, Mrs. Marguerite Dyar Veach, could not become vested with any interest in either the income or corpus of the property bequeathed under item 4 of the will. (3) Upon the death of Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, the children and grandchildren, then living, would be entitled to receive the entire interest in the property involved in the case. (4) The language of item 4, 'upon the expiration of said trust, as above provided, the property shall descend and go to my heirs at law according to the statute of descent and distribution of the State of Georgia,' is absolutely inconsistent with a holding that it was the intention of the testator that there was a vested interest in his heirs immediately following his death. (5) The actions of the trustees in distributing the income from the trust to the children and grandchildren of George A Veach, as set out in the amendment to the petition, were proper and legal. In the future the trustees, until the trust is executed, should from time to time distribute the income from the estate, after paying Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach $200 per month, and after paying all necessary expenses, to such children and grandchildren of George A. Veach as may be living. The corpus of the trust should pass, upon the death of Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, to the children and grandchildren of George A. Veach per stirpes; and should any other child or children of George A. Veach predecease Mrs. Annie Tankersley Veach, the income that would have been payable to such deceased child or grandchild shall be paid to his or her issue then living, per...
To continue reading
Request your trial