2019 Ohio 4936
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Frank B. Gaskill died testate on May 27, 2017; his will devised his "entire estate" to three stepchildren (Sharon Johnson, Rita Williams, Harry C. Crisp) with survivorship language directing redistribution if one or two predeceased the others.
- Sharon Johnson survived Gaskill but died March 4, 2018; Crisp was appointed executor and later filed for judicial construction of the will.
- Williams argued the will should be construed to prevent Johnson’s heirs/devisees from taking (i.e., that only the stepchildren themselves should share), or alternatively that the will created a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship so Johnson’s share would vest in the two survivors at her death.
- The probate court held each beneficiary received an undivided one-third at Gaskill’s death, Johnson’s bequest vested and was not extinguished by her later death, and Johnson’s heirs/devisees should receive her share.
- Williams and Crisp appealed, arguing (1) the court contravened testator intent to limit the devise to the stepchildren and (2) the survivorship language created a joint/survivorship tenancy.
- The appellate court affirmed: Johnson’s interest vested at Gaskill’s death and the will did not clearly create a survivorship tenancy; thus Johnson’s heirs/devisees inherit her one-third.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams/Crisp) | Defendant's Argument (Estate / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether beneficiaries' interests vested at testator's death or were postponed so the survivors alone take if a beneficiary later dies | Gaskill intended to limit devise to his stepchildren only; survivorship words show intent that only surviving stepchildren (not their heirs) share — vesting should be postponed or operate at distribution | Law favors immediate vesting at testator’s death absent clear contrary intent; will contains no explicit postponement | Vested at Gaskill’s death; no clear expression to postpone vesting, so Johnson’s interest passed to her heirs/devisees |
| Whether survivorship language created a survivorship tenancy/joint tenancy (so Johnson’s share would vest proportionately in the two survivors on her death) | The survivorship clause shows intent to create joint tenancy with right of survivorship (at least as to real property), so Johnson’s share should pass to Williams and Crisp on her death | Survivorship language can be read alternatively to avoid Ohio’s anti-lapse statute rather than to create a survivorship tenancy; Ohio disfavors common-law joint tenancy and requires clear intent to create survivorship tenancy | No clear, unmistakable intent to create a survivorship tenancy; beneficiaries take as tenants in common and personal property likewise lacks survivorship; Johnson’s heirs/devisees take her vested share |
Key Cases Cited
- Renner v. Williams, 71 Ohio St. 340 (1905) (words of survivorship in a will prima facie refer to testator's death absent language postponing vesting)
- In re Hutchison's Estate, 120 Ohio St. 542 (1929) (Ohio does not recognize common-law joint tenancy; parties may, however, expressly contract for survivorship rights)
- Polen v. Baker, 92 Ohio St.3d 563 (2001) (survivorship phrasing in a will can indicate intent to avoid anti-lapse statute)
- Stevens v. Radey, 117 Ohio St.3d 65 (2008) (legal preference for immediate vesting of estates at testator's death)
- Ohio Natl. Bank of Columbus v. Boone, 139 Ohio St. 361 (1942) (beneficiaries' rights become fixed at death of testator absent contrary intent)