Rule in Wild's Case

Property law

Part of the common law series
Types
Personal property Community property Real property Unowned property
Acquisition
Gift Adverse possession Deed Conquest Discovery Accession Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property Treasure trove Bailment License Alienation
Estates in land
Allodial title Fee simple Fee tail Life estate Defeasible estate Future interest remainder Concurrent estate Leasehold estate Condominiums Real estate Land tenure
Conveyancing
Bona fide purchaser Torrens title Strata title Deeds registration Estoppel by deed Quitclaim deed Mortgage Equitable conversion Action to quiet title Escheat
Future use control
Restraint on alienation Rule against perpetuities Rule in Shelley's Case Doctrine of worthier title
Nonpossessory interest
Lien Easement Profit Usufruct Covenant Equitable servitude
Related topics
Fixtures Waste Partition Practicing without a license Property rights Mineral rights Water rights prior appropriation riparian Lateral and subjacent support Assignment Nemo dat Quicquid plantatur Conflict of property laws Blackacre Security deposit
Other common law areas
Contract law Tort law Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law Evidence Higher category: Law and Common law
v t e

The Rule in Wild's Case is a common law rule of construction dating back to 1599 concerning a particular type of ambiguity in devises (such as grants or bequests) of real property: If a grantor (O) grants, by deed or will, property to another person (A) with the language "To A and her children", who gets lawful possession of the property?

The rule resolves this ambiguity as follows:

If A has living children at the time of the grant, A and her children take the property as joint tenants.
If A does not have living children at the time of the grant, A takes the property in fee tail.

This rule has fallen into disuse in those jurisdictions which no longer recognize the fee tail as a legal estate. Some U.S. states ignore the rule altogether, and interpret such a grant as giving a life estate and creating a remainder in her children. Section 14.2 of the Restatement (Third) of Property repudiates the Rule in Wild's Case, suggesting that many authorities consider it to be obsolete.

References

Dukeminier, Jesse, Johansen, Stanley M., Lindgren, James, and Sitkoff, Robert. Wills, Trusts, and Estates, 7th Edition, p. 664. Aspen Publishers, 2005. ISBN 0-7355-3695-3