## Facts

- In 1903, James J. Braswell executed a deed conveying a 37-acre tract to his son, Nathaniel T. Braswell, “during his natural life and to his lawful heirs at his death,” and further providing that if Nathaniel “should die leaving no lawful heir from his body, then the land herein conveyed shall revert back to the said James J. Braswell or to his lawful heirs.”
- The deed thus provided for Nathaniel’s possession for life and addressed what would happen if Nathaniel died without “lawful heir from his body” (issue).
- James J. Braswell later died intestate, leaving as his only heirs at law his three sons: S. J. Braswell, W. H. Braswell, and Nathaniel T. Braswell.
- Nathaniel subsequently died without issue, leaving a will that devised all of his real property to Charles Madison Braswell.
- Charles Madison Braswell filed a suit for partition against S. J. and W. H. Braswell, claiming that James retained a reversionary interest that descended to all three sons upon James’s death and that Nathaniel’s one-third share passed to Charles by devise.
- S. J. and W. H. Braswell disputed Charles’s claim, contending that the deed’s language created a remainder in James’s “lawful heirs” as purchasers to be determined at Nathaniel’s death, rather than a reversion retained by James.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed provision stating that, if Nathaniel died without issue, the land would “revert back” to James J. Braswell “or to his lawful heirs” created a remainder in the grantor’s heirs or left a reversion in the grantor.
2. Whether, under the rule against a remainder to the grantor’s heirs (doctrine of worthier title), the limitation to the grantor’s “lawful heirs” should be construed as a retained reversion absent clear intent to create a remainder in those heirs.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the decree granting Charles Madison Braswell the interest he claimed and allowing partition.
- The court construed the deed as giving Nathaniel a life estate, with a contingent remainder in fee in Nathaniel’s unborn issue.
- The court held that the further limitation—providing that if Nathaniel died without issue the land would “revert back” to James or his lawful heirs—did not create a remainder in the grantor’s heirs; instead, it left a reversion in James.
- Applying the rule against a remainder to the grantor’s heirs as a rule of construction, the court found no sufficient indication that James meant his “lawful heirs” to take as purchasers at a time other than James’s death.
- Because James retained the reversion, it descended at James’s intestate death to his three sons in equal shares, including Nathaniel; Nathaniel’s one-third share passed under his will to Charles.
- As owner of an undivided one-third interest, Charles was a tenant in common with S. J. and W. H. Braswell and could compel partition.

## Legal Principles

- A reversion is the future interest that remains in a grantor after the grantor conveys a lesser estate; it becomes possessory when the lesser estate ends (and when any stated condition that cuts off another future interest is met).
- A remainder is a future interest created in a transferee that is capable of becoming possessory upon the natural termination of the prior particular estate, and it must be created by the same instrument that creates the prior estate.
- Under the rule against a remainder to the grantor’s heirs (doctrine of worthier title), a limitation in an inter vivos conveyance to the grantor’s “heirs” following a life estate is ordinarily construed to leave a reversion in the grantor rather than create a remainder in the heirs.
- In Virginia, this rule functions as a rule of construction, so it may yield if the instrument shows a clear intent that the grantor’s heirs take as purchasers determined at a time other than the grantor’s death.
- When a grantor retains a reversion and dies intestate, the reversion passes by intestate succession to the grantor’s heirs; if an heir owns a share of that reversion, the heir may devise that share by will.

## Conclusion

Braswell v. Braswell held that the deed’s clause stating that the land would “revert back” to the grantor “or to his lawful heirs” if the life tenant died without issue left a reversion in the grantor, not a remainder in the grantor’s heirs; because that reversion descended to the grantor’s three sons on the grantor’s intestate death and the life tenant could devise his one-third share to Charles Madison Braswell, Charles owned an undivided one-third interest and was entitled to partition.


Braswell v. Braswell, 81 S.E.2d 560 (1954)