Skye v. Hession
AC 16-P-282
| Mass. App. Ct. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- In January 2006, Margaret A. Hession quitclaimed her home while reserving a life estate and a special power of appointment (exercisable by deed or will) that excluded herself and her creditors from appointment. The deed conveyed remainder interests to her children and son-in-law in unequal shares.
- Margaret executed the deed to protect the home from MassHealth look-back rules that were about to extend from 3 to 5 years.
- In October 2008 Margaret executed a will exercising the reserved special power of appointment, reducing Deaven Skye’s share from one-third to 5% and reallocating the remainder.
- Margaret died in March 2009; the will was presented for probate and Skye objected, then sued seeking a declaratory judgment that the deed’s reservation of a power of appointment was void ab initio as repugnant to the grant of remainder interests.
- The Probate and Family Court upheld the reservation as valid and admitted the will to probate; Skye appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deed that conveys remainder interests but reserves a life estate plus a special power of appointment is void as repugnant | Skye: reservation of power is irreconcilably repugnant to the grant of remainder interests and therefore void | Defendants: the reservation simply imposes a limitation on the remainders, creating defeasible rather than absolute estates; both provisions can stand | Court: reservation valid; remainders were defeasible, not fee simple absolute, so no repugnancy |
Key Cases Cited
- Commercial Wharf E. Condominium Ass'n v. Waterfront Parking Corp., 407 Mass. 123 (1990) (deeds construed to effect parties’ intent unless illegal or repugnant)
- Queler v. Skowron, 438 Mass. 304 (2002) (grantor may impose limitations so conveyance is not fee simple absolute)
- Proprietors of Canal Bridge v. Methodist Religious Soc., 13 Met. 335 (1847) (conflicting provisions in a deed that cannot coexist are repugnant and one must yield)
- Cutler v. Tufts, 3 Pick. 272 (1825) (subsequent terms that restrain or diminish granted estate are void)
- Matter of the Estate of Rosen, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 793 (2014) (power of appointment is not itself a legal interest in property)