## Facts

- Mary Harris died leaving a will that disposed of real and personal property she owned in Florida and in Massachusetts.
- In the dispositive clause at issue, Mary devised and bequeathed her property to her husband, Andrew J. Harris, “to be used as he sees fit during his life.”
- The will then provided that, “at his decease all that remains” would go in equal shares to Mary’s nephew, Clarence W. Brown, and Mary’s niece, Jessie Washington.
- A suit in equity was filed in Florida to construe the will and determine the extent of Andrew’s interest in the Florida property, including whether he could convey more than his life interest.
- The chancellor construed the will as giving Andrew a life estate plus a broad right during his lifetime to “dispose, incumber, convey, or sell” the property as though he held fee simple title, leaving Brown and Washington entitled only to whatever property happened to remain at Andrew’s death.
- Brown appealed, arguing that the chancellor’s construction effectively defeated the remainder that the will expressly gave to him and Washington.

## Issues

1. Whether a will that gives a spouse property “to be used as he sees fit during his life,” followed by a gift of “all that remains” at the spouse’s death to named beneficiaries, implies a power in the spouse to convey or encumber the fee simple title to Florida real estate.
2. Whether the chancellor erred by construing the clause as allowing the life tenant to defeat the remainder by selling or conveying the property in fee during his lifetime.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the chancellor’s decree.
- The court held that Andrew J. Harris received only a life estate in the Florida real property devised under the will.
- The court held that the words “to be used as he sees fit during his life” did not, by implication, grant Andrew a power to convey the fee simple title or otherwise cut off the remainder.
- The court recognized Brown and Washington as holding the remainder interest in fee, to take upon Andrew’s death, subject to Andrew’s ordinary rights as a life tenant.
- The cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s construction.

## Legal Principles

- A devise expressly limited to the first taker’s lifetime (“during his life”) is construed as a life estate, and courts will not expand it into a greater estate or a power to convey the fee unless the will clearly grants that authority.
- A clause giving the first taker broad enjoyment or use (“to be used as he sees fit”) does not alone imply a power to sell, convey, or encumber the property in a way that defeats an express gift over.
- When a will provides that at the life tenant’s death “all that remains” passes to named beneficiaries, the gift over is given effect as a remainder rather than treated as meaningless surplusage.
- A life tenant may possess and use the property during life, but absent a clearly stated power of sale or disposition, the life tenant cannot transfer fee simple title and thereby destroy the remaindermen’s estate.

## Conclusion

Brown v. Harris held that Mary Harris’s will gave her husband a life estate only, and that the language permitting him to “use” the property as he wished during his life did not imply a power to convey the fee simple title to Florida real estate; the remainder to Clarence Brown and Jessie Washington therefore remained effective, and the chancellor’s contrary construction was reversed and remanded.


Brown v. Harris, 106 So. 412 (1925)