## Facts

- Effie J. Seymour died in 1939 leaving a will with small cash gifts and a residuary plan for the rest of her estate.
- The will gave $100 each to Effie’s two stepdaughters, whom she referred to as “my daughters.”
- In the residuary clause, Effie devised the remainder of her real and personal property (including certain described real estate) to a named trustee “to be held in trust for the benefit of my son William H. Seymour during his lifetime and upon his death to be paid to his lawful heirs.”
- The will granted the trustee broad authority to manage the trust property, including power to sell, rent, improve, mortgage, repair, alter, and convey property without court order, and provided that property sold would be “unencumbered by this trust.”
- The trustee was directed to pay trust income only to William (or his guardian) for William’s sole use, and was permitted in the trustee’s discretion to use principal if needed for William’s support.
- The will also directed the trustee to pay for a proper burial for William.
- William died in 1960 and, by his own will, devised all of his property to his wife, Margaret B. Seymour.
- Margaret (individually and as successor trustee) filed an action to construe Effie’s will and for declaratory judgment, asserting that Effie’s language triggered the Rule in Shelley’s Case, so William took an equitable fee-simple interest that he could devise to her.
- William’s collateral relatives (the Heubaum and Fletcher defendants), claiming to be William’s “lawful heirs” under Effie’s will, appealed after the trial court entered a decree in Margaret’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether Effie Seymour’s devise to a trustee “for the benefit of my son William H. Seymour during his lifetime and upon his death to be paid to his lawful heirs” falls within the Rule in Shelley’s Case, giving William an equitable fee simple rather than a life interest with a remainder in his heirs as purchasers.
2. Whether Illinois’s 1953 statute abolishing the Rule in Shelley’s Case applies to Effie’s will, where Effie died in 1939.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed the trial court’s decree.
- It held that the Rule in Shelley’s Case applied to Effie’s testamentary trust language, so William took an equitable fee-simple estate and the words “lawful heirs” operated as words of limitation rather than creating a separate remainder.
- It held that the 1953 statutory abolition of the Rule in Shelley’s Case did not apply because the statute was not retroactive and Effie died before the statute took effect.
- As a result, William’s interest passed under his own will to Margaret, and the defendants did not take as remaindermen under Effie’s will.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Rule in Shelley’s Case, when the same instrument gives a freehold estate to a person and, in the same instrument, gives the remainder to that person’s heirs (including “lawful heirs”), the word “heirs” is treated as a word of limitation, and the first taker receives a fee simple.
- The rule applies to equitable interests held through a trust as well as to legal estates; placing title in a trustee for the beneficiary’s life does not, by itself, prevent operation of the rule.
- In Illinois, “heirs” (or “lawful heirs”) is generally read in its technical sense unless the instrument clearly shows a different meaning; absent clear contrary intent, a remainder “to A’s heirs” after an estate in A triggers the rule.
- Broad trustee management and sale powers, and directions that income (and sometimes principal) be used for the life beneficiary’s benefit, are consistent with the beneficiary holding the entire beneficial ownership for Shelley purposes.
- Illinois’s 1953 statute abolishing the Rule in Shelley’s Case applies prospectively and does not change the construction of wills of testators who died before the statute’s effective date.

## Conclusion

Effie Seymour’s 1939 will placed the residue in trust for her son William for life, with payment “upon his death” to his “lawful heirs,” but the court treated “lawful heirs” as limiting language under the Rule in Shelley’s Case, giving William an equitable fee simple; because the 1953 abolition statute was not retroactive, William could devise the property to his widow Margaret, and the collateral relatives claiming as heirs took nothing under Effie’s will.


Seymour v. Heubaum, 65 Ill. App. 2d 89 (1965)