T devised the income of a trust to his unmarried daughter for life. If at her death there were living issue of the daughter, the income was to be distributed to such issue until 24 years after T's death. The trust was then to terminate, unless issue, who had been living at T's death, should survive the 24-year period, in which event the income was to continue to be distributed until the death of such issue. It was further provided, "if my said daughter survives me, but at the time of her death leaves no issue of hers then living, the trust shall at the time of her death terminate . ... " On termination of the trust, gifts in remainder were limited to surviving children of the life tenant, to surviving issue of deceased children, to surviving named relatives and friends, and to surviving issue of those deceased. If none of these distributees or their children were living at the time of distribution, T's heirs were to take the corpus. The probate court found the entire trust invalid because non-separable gifts in remainder violated both the common law rule against perpetuities and the statutory rules prohibiting restraints on alienation. On appeal, held, reversed. Although the contingent remainders did not violate the statutory rule against restraints on alienation, all contingent remainders except those to named relatives and friends were void under the common law rule against perpetuities, which is in force in California. However, the valid portions of the trust are separable from the void ones. In re Sahlender's Estate, (Cal. App. 1948), 201 P. (2d) 69.
Howard W. Haftel S. Ed.,
FUTURE INTERESTS-RULE AS TO REMOTENESS OF VESTING IN CALIFORNIA,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss7/19