BANCROFT EASTERN TRUST CO. v CALDER, 1936 Illustrates 2 outcomes for personal property Reminds us to be careful when using the word ‘issue’ RULES: For personalty, if words of shares or severance then it will be TinC – if not, then JT If land, it will be TinC unless the document indicates otherwise (this isn’t in the case, but rounds out the idea of what the assumed outcomes will be) If wording says “leave to my issue,” under succession this means all lineal descendants If shares go straight to 2 individuals = per capita If some shares go to a 4-way split of a half share = per stirpes FACTS: Testator left life estate in realty to widow, with residue cashed out and invested in 2 equal shares Half to widow and half to be split between 4 kids (1 kid is dead and had 2 kids) ISSUE: How should the court categorize the co-ownership relationships? HELD & ANALYSIS: 2-way split = TinC because explicitly refers to equal shares 4-way split of the half = TinC because explicitly refers to shares for 4 kids 2-way split of the eighth for the grandkids = Joint Tenancy because no reference to equal shares WINCHESTER v MCCULLOUGH, 2000 RULES: “Jointly” isn’t conclusive indication of intent to create a JT – needs to also be an intent for survivorship Reference to successorship indicates an intention that there not be survivorship, which is required for JT If ambiguity, err on side of TinC FACTS: Will = “to son and 2 daughters to theirs jointly and in equal shares” Substitution clause in the will used the term “successor” ISSUE: JT or TinC? HELD & ANALYSIS: TinC because jointly isn’t conclusive indication of intent to create a JT – needs to also be an intent for survivorship BULL V BULL
BANCROFT EASTERN TRUST CO. v CALDER, 1936 Illustrates 2 outcomes for personal property Reminds us to be careful when using the word ‘issue’ RULES: For personalty, if words of shares or severance then it will be TinC – if not, then JT If land, it will be TinC unless the document indicates otherwise (this isn’t in the case, but rounds out the idea of what the assumed outcomes will be) If wording says “leave to my issue,” under succession this means all lineal descendants If shares go straight to 2 individuals = per capita If some shares go to a 4-way split of a half share = per stirpes FACTS: Testator left life estate in realty to widow, with residue cashed out and invested in 2 equal shares Half to widow and half to be split between 4 kids (1 kid is dead and had 2 kids) ISSUE: How should the court categorize the co-ownership relationships? HELD & ANALYSIS: 2-way split = TinC because explicitly refers to equal shares 4-way split of the half = TinC because explicitly refers to shares for 4 kids 2-way split of the eighth for the grandkids = Joint Tenancy because no reference to equal shares WINCHESTER v MCCULLOUGH, 2000 RULES: “Jointly” isn’t conclusive indication of intent to create a JT – needs to also be an intent for survivorship Reference to successorship indicates an intention that there not be survivorship, which is required for JT If ambiguity, err on side of TinC FACTS: Will = “to son and 2 daughters to theirs jointly and in equal shares” Substitution clause in the will used the term “successor” ISSUE: JT or TinC? HELD & ANALYSIS: TinC because jointly isn’t conclusive indication of intent to create a JT – needs to also be an intent for survivorship BULL V BULL