## Facts

- A testator devised his widow a life estate in farmland and a farmhouse, with the remainder to his daughter and grandson.
- The widow lived in the farmhouse for about two years, then rented it briefly; the house became vacant and remained unoccupied for roughly eleven years.
- The widow continued to rent the farmland, but the farmhouse was not maintained during the extended vacancy.
- The remaindermen periodically inspected the premises during the life tenancy.
- The remaindermen and the life tenant were largely estranged for many years.
- After the life tenant died testate, her estate did not benefit the remaindermen.
- The remaindermen filed a claim against the life tenant’s estate for waste, seeking damages for deterioration of the farmhouse.
- A magistrate found deterioration but ruled for the estate on laches/estoppel; on de novo review, the district court found neglect-based deterioration, awarded $10,433 in damages, and rejected laches, estoppel, limitations, and abandonment.
- The estate, through its executrix, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the remaindermen’s post-death claim for waste was barred by laches or equitable estoppel based on delay and knowledge of deterioration during the life tenancy.
2. Whether the life tenant’s failure to maintain the vacant farmhouse constituted permissive waste rather than ordinary depreciation.
3. Whether the statute of limitations or abandonment barred recovery for deterioration occurring during the life tenancy.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment awarding $10,433 to the remaindermen.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding of permissive waste caused by the life tenant’s neglect and failure to keep the premises in reasonable repair.
- The court held the defenses of laches and estoppel were not established on the record.
- The court left undisturbed the district court’s rejection of limitations and abandonment defenses.

## Legal Principles

- A life tenant is a quasi-trustee for remaindermen and must preserve the property and prevent decay or waste.
- A life tenant has an affirmative duty to keep life-estate property in reasonable repair; neglect resulting in deterioration can constitute permissive waste.
- Waste does not include ordinary depreciation; it includes voluntary waste (commission) and permissive waste (omission/neglect).
- Remaindermen may seek compensatory damages and may also seek equitable remedies (including injunctive relief or receivership) for waste.
- Remaindermen may sue for waste during the life tenancy, but delay alone does not bar suit; laches requires delay plus disadvantage/prejudice, and estoppel requires conduct inducing reasonable reliance to the detriment of the party asserting it.
- For waste claims by remaindermen, the limitations period does not begin to run in favor of the life tenant until the life tenancy ends, though equitable bars may apply in an appropriate case.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a damages award against a life tenant’s estate for permissive waste where prolonged neglect caused substantial deterioration of a vacant farmhouse, and it rejected laches and estoppel because the estate failed to show the required prejudice or reliance arising from the remaindermen’s delay in suing.


Moore v. Phillips, 6 Kan. App. 2d 94, 627 P.2d 831 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981)