Story Case

Mr. Beale, a wealthy ranchman, during his lifetime, gave away one of his farms in the following words: "I hereby give Meadow Grove farm to Mary Adams for her entire life." Mary Adams took possession of the property and lived upon it for forty years. At her death she left a will devising the property to her eldest daughter. Mr. Beale had died in the meantime, and his son, Joseph, contested the will and claimed the property, because he said his father gave away only a life estate which was complete when Mary Adams died.

Thereafter, he said, it reverted to him, as sole heir of Mr. Beale. Is he right?

Ruling Court Case. Sabina Jordan Vs. City Of Benwood, Volume 42 West Virginia Reports, Page 312

Under a certain will, property was devised to Bridget Clark for life; remainder to Sabina Jordan. The City of Benwood changed the grade of the street and alley upon which the property in question abutted; Sabina Jordan now brings this action to recover damages caused by the improvements to her interest in the land. In her declaration, she alleged that she was a reversioner.

In defense to the action, the city of Benwood contended that there could be no recovery because she was the owner of the remainder, and not the owner of a reversion.

Mr. Justice Brannan said: "The pleader has only misnamed the estate of Sabina Jordan in calling it a 'reversion' instead of a 'remainder,' but he has stated the plaintiff's estate to be an estate in fee after the termination of a given life; and what is there in the mere misnaming, if the substance appears? 'Reversion' and' remainder' mean different things as regards the manner of deviation of title; and, in certain instances, the omission to distinguish between them accurately might be material, but they both mean an estate after the termination of a particular estate, and failure to discriminate in this case hurts no one." Held that interest of Sabina was a remainder, and she could recover her loss.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been said heretofore that complete ownership in property is known as a fee estate, and that from this fee estate lesser estates may be carved. For example, the owner of a fee estate may wish to give to his wife a life estate in the property. This may be accomplished, and after the life estate is gone there is still other ownership left in respect to that property. If the owner of the fee carves lesser estates out of the property and directs that after the lesser estates have ceased, then the property shall vest in a particular person, the property left to this person is known as a remainder. He is known as the remainderman; he possesses that ownership of the property which is left after the lesser estates have been given to other persons. If the owner of the property, however, merely gives away lesser estates, and says nothing about the ownership remaining, this ownership still belongs to him, and is known as the reversion. That is, the reversion is the remaining ownership in the property after lesser estates have been enjoyed. The owner of the reversion is known as the reversioner.

The son, as sole heir of Mr. Beale, in the Story Case, was right in his contention. While the father, Mr. Beale, lived, he had a reversionary interest in Meadow Grove Farm. When the father died, this reversionary interest went to the son as a remainder. Before the father's death, he was a reversioner; after his death, the son was the remainderman as to Meadow Grove Farm.