## Facts

- Francis A. Crawford (testator) died in 1922 owning two farms in Carroll County, Maryland, and left a will executed three days before his death.
- The will granted his widow, Jessie Ethel Crawford, the use of the property “so long as she remained a widow,” creating an estate measured by widowhood.
- The will also authorized Jessie to “divide” or dispose of the property between the couple’s two sons (Francis II and Francis III), functioning as a special power of appointment limited to that class.
- The will did not expressly state who would take if Jessie failed to exercise the power (no express limitation over).
- One son, Francis III, later died leaving a widow and child who asserted an interest in the property.
- In 1971, Jessie conveyed the farms to a trustee and received a reconveyance for her life while reserving powers to sell, lease, or encumber, and directing the remainder at her death to Francis III.
- Jessie filed suit in the Circuit Court for Carroll County to determine the parties’ respective interests under the will; the chancellor construed Jessie’s interest as an estate during widowhood with a special power to appoint equally between the two sons, but found no limitation over on non-exercise.
- Jessie appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals seeking clarification of the remainder interests and the effect of her 1971 deeds.

## Issues

1. Whether the will gave Jessie an estate during widowhood or a larger estate.
2. Whether the will conferred a special power of appointment in favor of the two sons, and whether it was exercisable inter vivos or only by will.
3. How the remainder should be treated if the power was not exercised, given the absence of an express limitation over.
4. Whether Jessie’s 1971 conveyances constituted a valid exercise of the special power of appointment.

## Decision

- The court held Jessie received an estate durante viduitate (terminable upon death or remarriage), not a fee simple.
- The court held the will granted Jessie a special power of appointment limited to the two sons, exercisable during life or by will absent a restriction to testamentary exercise.
- The court rejected an interpretation that left the remainder effectively unprovided for, construing the will to avoid partial intestacy and to carry out the testator’s plan that the property pass within the lines of the two sons.
- The court treated Jessie’s 1971 deeds as legally effective only to the extent they complied with the will’s special power—i.e., as an inter vivos appointment within the permitted class—and modified the chancellor’s construction accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- Language granting a widow possession or use “so long as she remains a widow” creates an estate durante viduitate, not an absolute estate.
- A will may create a special power of appointment when the donee’s authority is confined to a defined class of permissible appointees; such a power may be exercised by deed if the instrument does not confine exercise to a will.
- Courts construe wills to effectuate testamentary intent from the instrument as a whole and disfavor constructions producing partial intestacy when a reasonable alternative exists.
- An attempted exercise of a special power is valid only if it stays within the class of permissible objects and complies with any limits on the mode or scope of appointment; transactions that purport to restructure the estate are effective only insofar as they implement the donor’s plan through the power granted.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to give the widow an estate during widowhood plus a special power to appoint the remainder between the two sons, interpreted the remainder scheme to prevent unintended intestacy despite the lack of an express limitation over, and recognized the widow’s inter vivos deeds as effective only insofar as they constituted a valid appointment within the power’s limits.


Crawford v. Crawford, 296 A.2d 388 (Md. 1972)