(copied from This week's decisions in Lawyers weekly dated 12/16/19)
Where (1) a 1956 will devised real property to various family members as life tenants and, after their deaths, to the testator's grandchildren and (2) one of the grandchildren died intestate in 2008 while some of the life tenants established by her grandfather's will were still alive, the grandchild was granted a vested interest in the properties when her grandfather died, as such vesting was not contingent on her surviving the life tenants.
Reversed.
"When he died in 1956, Andrew Dell'Olio owned two adjacent, triple decker residences in Cambridge. His will devised the properties to various family members as life tenants, and, after their deaths, to his grandchildren. The dispute before us concerns one of those grandchildren, Emily Dell'Olio (Emily), who died intestate in 2008. At that time, some of the life tenants established by her grandfather's will were still alive. The question raised by this appeal is whether Emily's interest in the properties had vested by the time she died, in which case her interest would devolve to her heirs at law and be subject to claims brought by her creditors. Asserting that such vesting had occurred was the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid (MassHealth), which sought reimbursement pursuant to G.L.c. 118E, S31, for significant medical expenses it had incurred on Emily's behalf. The six surviving grandchildren maintained that Emily's interest in the property instead was contingent on her surviving the life tenants, and thus was extinguished upon her predeceasing them. On cross motions for summary judgment, a Probate and Family Court judge ruled in favor of the surviving grandchidren and awarded them each an undivided one-sixth interest in the properties...
"This case presents a recurring issue: Do remainder interests created by a will vest when the testator dies, or do they remain contingent on the holders of those interests surviving the life tenants?...
"...Emily was eight years old when her grandfather died. The presumption that he intended his living granddaughter's interest in the properties to vest upon his death therefore lies at its most potent...
"...To be sure, the will does appear to reflect the grandfather's desire to keep the adjacent properties available as a family homestead for his wife, his children and their spouses, and his grandchildren. However, it hardly follows that he therefore must have intended to deprive a grandchild's heirs of an interest in the properties should that grandchild predecease the life tenants. Indeed, had Emily had children, the surviving grandchildren's interpretation would disinherit any such children, a result that seems inconsistent with the grandfather's intent of creating a family homestead to be shared by his descendants...
"In sum, we conclude that on the undisputed facts, the surviving grandchildren have not made a showing sufficient to overcome the strong presumption that Emily was granted a vested interest in the properties when her grandfather died. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
