Canoy v. Canoy

Facts

Myrtle G. Canoy died leaving a will devising her farm to her “son, Roger Canoy, for the term of his natural life, and at his death, in ten (10) equal shares to my ten children, and for any that are deceased, to their issue, if any.” Roger Canoy (plaintiff) and his nine other brothers and sisters all survived Myrtle’s death. Roger brought a declaratory judgment action requesting the court interpret the will and declare Roger’s interest in the property.The trial court found Roger had a life estate and ruled only those siblings who survived Roger’s death would take a remainder share. Roger appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, Roger and the guardian ad litem for the unborn heirs (defendants) both argued that the trial court impliedly found that the children’s remainder was contingent, but that the court should have found that the remainder interests were vested at Myrtle’s death. They then argued that, if the remainder had already vested when Myrtle died, each child did not have to survive Roger to inherit his or her share.