## Facts

- A testator created a trust for his grandson, William Rowe Robinson, providing support until age 25 and then income for William for life.
- The will provided subsequent interests for William’s children, but William died without issue.
- In default of issue, the will directed distribution of the trust fund “unto and amongst all and every the brothers and sisters” of William, share and share alike, “upon” each attaining age 25.
- At the will’s execution, William had several siblings; additional siblings were born after execution, after the testator’s death, and even after William’s death.
- Trustees sought directions on construction and administration, given uncertainty about class membership, vesting, and compliance with the rule against perpetuities.

## Issues

1. Whether the phrase “all and every the brothers and sisters” referred only to siblings alive at the testator’s death, or to all siblings living at William’s death (including after-born siblings).
2. Whether the siblings’ interests vested at birth with payment postponed, or were contingent on attaining age 25.
3. Whether the gift to William’s siblings violated the rule against perpetuities because the interests might vest, if at all, beyond the permitted period.
4. If the gift was too remote as to some potential class members, whether the court could (a) reduce the age condition from 25 to 21, or (b) uphold valid shares while invalidating only remote ones.

## Decision

- The court held the gift over to William’s brothers and sisters, conditioned on attaining age 25, void for remoteness under the rule against perpetuities.
- The class was construed as all brothers and sisters living at William’s death, not limited to those living at the testator’s death.
- The interests were contingent, not vested, because attaining age 25 was a condition precedent to taking.
- The court refused to rewrite the will by reducing the age condition or by severing the class gift to preserve only some siblings’ shares; the class gift failed as a whole.

## Legal Principles

- A future interest is invalid under the rule against perpetuities if it might vest, if at all, later than 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest; the test is possibility, not probability.
- A gift to a class that remains open to include persons not lives in being at the relevant time, coupled with an age contingency beyond the perpetuity period, is void if any class member’s interest might vest too remotely.
- Language giving property “at,” “upon attaining,” or “after attaining” a specified age generally makes attainment of that age a condition precedent, creating a contingent interest rather than a vested interest with postponed enjoyment.
- Courts will not cure a perpetuities violation by judicial modification (e.g., reducing an age contingency) or by partial validation that would transform an integrated class gift into separate gifts inconsistent with the testamentary scheme.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a testamentary class gift to William’s siblings conditioned on reaching age 25 because the class could include after-born siblings and the interests might vest outside the perpetuities period, and it declined to save any portion of the gift through reformation or severance.


Leake v. Robinson, 2 Mer. 363, 35 Eng. Rep. 979 (Ch. 1817)