## Facts

- A testatrix executed a will giving her husband “the use of all my property” for life, with permission to use principal as necessary for his care and support.
- The will provided that, upon the husband’s death, “whatever remains” would pass to the testatrix’s “heirs at law according to the statutes” of New York.
- At both execution of the will and the testatrix’s death, the husband was her closest relative and, under intestacy law, her sole heir.
- A construction proceeding was brought to determine whether “my heirs at law” referred to heirs at the testatrix’s death or at the husband’s death.
- The Surrogate’s Court fixed the heirs at the testatrix’s death, resulting in the husband taking both the life estate and the remainder (and thus absolute ownership by merger).
- Collateral relatives appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a will that gives a spouse a life estate with limited invasion of principal, followed by a gift of “whatever remains” to the testatrix’s “heirs at law,” fixes the class of heirs at the testatrix’s death or at the death of the life tenant.
2. Whether the usual presumption that “heirs” are determined at the testator’s death yields when that reading would collapse the will’s life-estate-and-remainder plan.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Surrogate’s construction.
- The court held that “my heirs at law” referred to the testatrix’s heirs determined at the death of the life tenant (the husband).
- The husband took a life estate with power to invade principal for his care and support, but did not take the remainder in fee.
- Any property remaining at the husband’s death would pass to those who were then the testatrix’s statutory heirs.

## Legal Principles

- The rule that “heirs” are determined at the testator’s death is a presumption of construction, not a fixed command, and may be displaced by a contrary intent shown by the will’s language or plan.
- Where fixing heirs at the testator’s death would make the life tenant the sole remainderman and effectively eliminate the remainder, a court may construe the will to fix heirs at the termination of the life estate to avoid that incongruous result.
- A gift of “whatever remains” after a life estate with limited invasion supports treating the remainder as a real future interest, not one that merges immediately into the life tenant’s estate.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to determine “my heirs at law” at the husband’s death, preserving the husband’s life estate with support-based invasion power and preventing merger that would have converted the testamentary plan into outright ownership at the testatrix’s death.


Matter of Carlin, 6 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1958)