Tapley v. Dill

217 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. 1949)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Valentine Tapley died in April 1910. His son, Joe Tapley, and three grandchildren, to wit: Caroline, Harry and Mary children of his deceased daughter Rebecca, survived him. Valentine bequeathed and devised one-half of his estate, real and personal, to his son. He bequeathed to his granddaughter, Caroline $100. The next two paragraphs each created a trust estate in one-fourth of his estate, real and personal, less $50 (one-half of the bequest to Caroline), in Joe Tapley, as trustee, for the benefit of Harry and Mary, respectively, for life and then to their respective bodily heirs or, if none, to his son, Joe Tapley. Joe Tapley was to pay Harry the net annual rents derived from the real estate and the net annual interest derived from the personal property each year during his natural life and should Harry die without leaving bodily heirs, the trust estate created shall become a part of the trust estate of my granddaughter Mary formerly Mary R. Tapley subject to all the conditions of said trust estate and in case at that time the said Mary should be dead then the trust estate shall go to and become the property of his son Joe Tapley. Valentine gave Joe Tapley, as trustee, in trust for the use and benefit of Mary and her bodily heirs one-fourth (1/4) of the estate, both real and personal, less the sum of fifty dollars, being one-half of the amount I have bequeathed to Caroline and directed that the net annual rents derived from the real estate and the net annual interest derived from the personal property shall be paid to Mary each and every year during her natural life and should Mary die without leaving bodily heirs said trust estate shall become a part of the trust estate of Harry subject to all the terms and conditions of said trust estate of Harry and in case at that time Harry should be dead then the trust estate shall go to and become the property of Joe Tapley.' Valentine directed Joe Tapley to take specific real estate at a value of $11,150.75 as part of the property given to him, and specific real estate as testamentary trustee for each of the testamentary trusts quoted supra and placed a value on each of $6,000. The will did not have a residuary clause. Joe Tapley died June 28, 1915, without descendants and testate. He bequeathed and devised his estate, real and personal, to his widow, Mary H. Tapley (D1). D1 was appointed successor trustee and administered the trust estates. Mary (the granddaughter) died July 5, 1921, without bodily heirs and intestate. Harry died November 10, 1944, without bodily heirs and intestate. The judgment and decree was for Caroline as the sole and only heir at law of her deceased grandfather. The court reasoned that the will failed to dispose of the whole of testator's fee simple estate and the land was intestate property. The residuum, be it considered in the nature of a reversion or a resulting trust, at testator's death passed to his heirs according to the law of descents and distributions uninfluenced by his will; and a one-half interest vested in his son, Joe Tapley, and the other half interest vested in the three grandchildren of his deceased daughter, a one-sixth interest each in Harry, Mary and Caroline. Joe Tapley's one-half interest passed at his death by his will to his widow, D1. Dill was not entitled to the whole of said lands as intestate property.