Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Rabin
Abrams v. Templeton
Citation:Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1995; 320 S.C.325; 465 S.E.2d 117.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In 1914, the testator Mary Ann Taylor Ramage executed her will in which she devised 130 acres of land to the Appellants. She also devised 160 acres to her husband Frank Ramage during his life, then to his children during their life and then to the Appellees. Frank had nine children and of these nine, only five had children.
Appellants sued Appellees, claiming that the gift Appellees received was void because it violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. The trial judge ruled that the gift did violate the Rule and that under state law, they must apply a savings clause that preserves the testator’s distribution intent but doesn’t violate the Rule.
The trial judge found that the testator wanted to equally benefit the Appellants and Appellees, but she intended for the 160 acres to stay with the Appellees. The trial judge, therefore, applied a savings clause to devise the interest amongst Frank Ramage’s children and the Appellees. However, the clause failed to vest the interest of Frank’s children who were childless. Appellants appealed this ruling, arguing that the gift was void and that they are entitled to the interest of Frank’s four children who were childless.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.