## Facts

- A testator executed a will in 1914 and died in 1915, survived by her husband, her son Albert, and grandchildren; her daughter Alma had predeceased her, leaving five children.
- The will devised approximately 130 acres to Alma’s children (the Templeton branch).
- The dispute concerned a separate 160-acre tract devised in successive interests: a life estate to the husband; then a life estate to the son Albert; then life estates to Albert’s children; and then, at the death of each of Albert’s children, that child’s share was to be divided among that child’s children (the testator’s great-grandchildren).
- Descendants of Albert (the Ramage branch) and descendants of Alma (the Templeton branch) litigated ownership of the 160-acre tract after questions arose about the validity of the ultimate gift to great-grandchildren.
- The circuit court construed the remainder to great-grandchildren as a nonvested class gift that could vest outside the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP).
- Rather than allow the invalid remainder to cause a reversion and intestate distribution, the circuit court applied a state perpetuities reform statute to insert a savings clause intended to preserve the will’s plan and keep the tract within Albert’s line.
- The Templeton descendants appealed, challenging the reformation and aspects of the distribution among Albert’s descendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s remainder to the testator’s great-grandchildren constituted a nonvested class gift that violated the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities.
2. Whether the court properly reformed the disposition under S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) by inserting a savings clause to avoid forfeiture and approximate the testator’s plan within RAP limits.
3. How the reformed interests should be distributed within Albert’s line, including treatment of shares associated with grandchildren who died without issue.

## Decision

- The court held the gift over to great-grandchildren was a nonvested class gift that violated the common-law RAP and was void as written.
- The court affirmed the use of S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) to reform the will by inserting a savings clause so the interests would vest within the perpetuities period while approximating the testator’s distribution plan.
- The court rejected an intestacy/reversion outcome that would shift the 160-acre tract to include the Templeton branch, finding that result inconsistent with the will’s structure allocating different tracts to different family lines.
- The court modified the trial court’s distribution order regarding certain shares (including interests tied to grandchildren who died childless) to better carry out the testator’s plan within the reformed scheme.
- Disposition: affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- A class gift remainder is invalid under the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities if there is any possibility the interest might vest later than 21 years after a life in being at creation.
- When a disposition violates RAP, S.C. Code Ann. § 27-6-60(B) authorizes judicial reformation to approximate the transferor’s manifested plan of distribution while staying within perpetuities limits.
- In construing and reforming testamentary dispositions, courts prioritize effectuating the testator’s plan as expressed by the will as a whole, and avoid intestacy where a statutory reformation mechanism can prevent it.
- A reformation order may require adjustment of internal allocations among beneficiaries to implement the will’s plan consistently with the reformed vesting structure.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the will’s remainder to great-grandchildren violated the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities, but upheld statutory reformation inserting a savings clause to preserve the testator’s plan and keep the 160-acre tract within the son’s line of descendants, while modifying the distribution order to correct specific share allocations.


Abrams v. Templeton, 320 S.C. 325, 465 S.E.2d 117 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995)