## Facts

- William J. Sellick died leaving a will that set aside $25,000 for his widow, Caroline Sellick, to use during her lifetime, with any remaining balance at her death to pass equally to his nephew Arthur Sellick and niece Gertrude Sellick.
- The will also gave Arthur and Gertrude $5,000 each outright.
- The residue of the estate was devised to the testator’s son from a prior marriage, William R. Sellick.
- After the testator’s death, Caroline elected to take her statutory elective share rather than accept benefits under the will.
- The son sought relief to protect his residuary interest from reduction caused by the widow’s election, arguing in substance that the $25,000 arrangement should be treated so as to offset the diminished residue.
- The trial court construed the will to give Caroline the $25,000 absolutely, effectively denying Arthur and Gertrude any remainder interest in that fund.
- Arthur and Gertrude appealed, asserting the $25,000 created a life interest in Caroline and a remainder to them, and that the widow’s election renounced the life interest and accelerated their remainder.

## Issues

1. Whether the will gave the widow an absolute interest in the $25,000, or only a life interest with a remainder to Arthur and Gertrude.
2. If the widow held only a life interest, whether her election to take the statutory share constituted a renunciation that terminated the life interest and accelerated the remainder.
3. Whether the residuary devisee could require the $25,000 fund to be redirected or retained to offset the reduction in the residue caused by the widow’s election.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s construction of the $25,000 gift as absolute.
- The court held the will created a life interest for Caroline in the $25,000 fund with a remainder to Arthur and Gertrude.
- The court held the widow’s statutory election operated as a renunciation of the testamentary life interest.
- Applying the acceleration doctrine, the court ruled the remainder to Arthur and Gertrude became immediately effective upon the renunciation, rather than waiting until the widow’s death.
- The court rejected the residuary devisee’s attempt to sequester or redirect the $25,000 fund to compensate for the reduced residue.

## Legal Principles

- Express language granting use of a specified fund for life, coupled with an express gift of the remainder of that fund to named persons, is ordinarily construed as creating a life estate (or life interest) with a remainder, not an outright gift, absent clear contrary intent.
- A widow’s election to take a statutory share instead of a testamentary life interest is treated as a renunciation of the testamentary interest.
- Absent a contrary intent shown by the will, renunciation or premature termination of a prior estate accelerates the next succeeding estate in remainder into present enjoyment.
- Courts will not reorder specific testamentary gifts to protect a residuary beneficiary from the effects of a statutory elective share unless the will clearly directs such a priority.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to give the widow only a life interest in the $25,000 fund, held that her election against the will renounced that life interest, and applied acceleration so the nephew and niece took the remainder immediately, while denying the residuary devisee any reallocation of the fund to preserve the residue.


Sellick v. Sellick, 173 N.W. 609 (Mich. 1919)