## Facts

- Wycoff Hendrickson executed a will (1920) that became effective at his death (1928) devising Mulberry Hill Farm to his son, Earle, “during the term of his natural life,” with a further devise after Earle’s death to Earle’s “sole heir or heirs in land in fee simple.”
- Earle died in 1997 without lineal descendants and left a will devising the farm’s beneficial interest to two non-relatives, Elizabeth A. Olson and Nancy L. Nicholson.
- If Earle had died intestate, his heirs at law would have been several blood relatives who claimed the property should pass to them under Wycoff’s will.
- In 1955–1956, in unrelated litigation involving the farm, the Chancery Division ordered a sale and directed the proceeds be held in trust for the benefit of those holding present and future interests; the judgment used functional language referring to “future estates.”
- After Earle’s death, Fleet Bank, N.A., as trustee under Wycoff’s testamentary trust, filed an action to determine who owned the property interest (or proceeds) under proper construction of Wycoff’s devise.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1955–1956 Chancery proceeding precluded litigation over whether Earle held a life estate or a fee simple under Wycoff’s will.
2. Whether Wycoff’s 1928 devise triggered the Rule in Shelley’s Case, converting a life estate in Earle with a remainder to Earle’s heirs into a fee simple in Earle, so that Earle’s will controls distribution.

## Decision

- The prior 1955–1956 decree did not preclude the present dispute because it did not actually decide the Rule in Shelley’s Case question or definitively construe Wycoff’s will.
- The court held the 1934 statutory abolition of the Rule in Shelley’s Case did not apply because Wycoff’s will took effect in 1928, and the relevant statutory exception tied to surviving lineal descendants was inapplicable because Earle died childless.
- Applying the Rule in Shelley’s Case, the court concluded Earle took a fee simple under Wycoff’s devise.
- The property interest (including proceeds held in trust) therefore passed under Earle’s will to Olson and Nicholson, not to Earle’s intestate heirs.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion and claim preclusion require that the precise issue be actually litigated and necessarily decided; a prior decree ordering a sale and trust arrangement does not bar later litigation where the nature of the underlying estate was not adjudicated.
- New Jersey’s statutory abolition of the Rule in Shelley’s Case applies prospectively to interests created by instruments taking effect after the statute’s effective date; earlier instruments remain governed by the common-law rule.
- Under the common-law Rule in Shelley’s Case, a conveyance or devise “to A for life, then to A’s heirs” treats “heirs” as words of limitation, merging the life estate and remainder and vesting a fee simple in A.
- When the Rule applies, it operates as a rule of law rather than a canon for discerning intent; formal requirements control even if the testator likely expected heirs to take as purchasers.

## Conclusion

The court determined that a pre-1934 will devising a life estate to a son with a remainder to the son’s heirs vested a fee simple in the son under the Rule in Shelley’s Case, so the farm’s beneficial ownership passed under the son’s will to his named devisees rather than to his heirs at law.


In re Estate of Hendrickson, 324 N.J. Super. 538, 736 A.2d 540 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1999)