Thrasher v. Thrasher
169 So. 3d 1043
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Gail Thrasher filed to remove the decedent's estate from probate to circuit court and asserted a life estate in the Brewer Road home under an antenuptial agreement.
- The antenuptial agreement expressly grants Gail a life estate and requires her to use rental proceeds to maintain the Brewer Road home.
- The circuit court, in final settlement, found Gail had a life estate and required her to live there and to fund taxes and insurance.
- In 2013, the decedent's children moved for contempt, claiming Gail forfeited the life estate by canceling insurance and abandoning the home.
- Gail responded that she conveyed the life estate or maintained connections to the property, and that the trial court's conditions were not obligating forfeiture.
- The supreme court transferred the appeal to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which ultimately reversed the contempt finding and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the antenuptial language create a defeasible life estate? | Thrasher argues language is not a defeasance. | Estate contends language creates a conditional limitation. | No defeasible limit; life estate not forfeited. |
| Did Gail's actions (insurance cancellation, abandonment) justify forfeiture of the life estate? | Thrasher contends actions justify forfeiture under agreement. | Estate argues conditional forfeiture appropriate. | Actions did not create a forfeiture; judgment overturned. |
| Did the decree on final settlement properly constrain Gail's life estate or its use of proceeds? | Decree interpretations incorrectly limited Gail. | Decree validly enforcing life estate conditions. | Decree did not constitutionally or contractually forfeit Gail's life estate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotney v. Eason, 269 Ala. 354 (1959) (defeasible life estate requires clear conditional language)
- Libby v. Winston, 207 Ala. 681 (1922) (forfeiture requires clear intent or valid condition)
- Fruth v. Shultz, No. WD-94-052 (Ohio Ct.App.1995) (1995) (not an Alabama official reporter; cited for principle ( Ohio case))
- Rearick v. Sieving, 103 So.3d 815 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (license vs life estate analysis guiding intent)
- Cotney v. Eason, 269 Ala. 356-57, 113 So.2d 514-15 (1959) (defeasance language must show clear intent)
- Pritchett v. Turner, 437 So.2d 104 (1983) (limits on life estate unclear without defeasance language)
- Chancy v. Chancy Lake Homeowners Ass’n, 55 So.3d 287 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (practice in interpreting licenses/easements)
- Vidmer v. Lloyd, 193 Ala. 386, 69 So. 480 (1915) (life estate conveyance and rights of life tenant)
- McMichael v. Craig, 105 Ala. 382 (1895) (life tenant conveyance not forfeiting by itself)
- Fruth v. Shultz, No. WD-94-052 (Ohio Ct.App.1995) (1995) (see above (non Alabama source))