Legal Definitions - Rule in Wild's Case

The Rule in Wild's Case was a historical principle in property law that dictated how certain gifts of land were interpreted. Specifically, it applied when a property was granted to an individual using language such as "to A and A's children." The interpretation of this grant depended entirely on whether the individual (A) had children at the exact moment the gift legally became effective.

• If the individual had no children at that time, the rule presumed the grantor intended to create a fee tail. A fee tail was a form of ownership that restricted the property to be passed down only through the recipient's direct descendants, severely limiting their ability to sell or freely transfer it outside that specific family line.
• If the individual did have children at that time, the rule interpreted the grant as a joint tenancy. This meant the individual and their existing children would own the property together, with equal, undivided interests. A key feature of joint tenancy is the "right of survivorship," where a deceased owner's share automatically passes to the surviving co-owners.

It is important to note that the Rule in Wild's Case, along with the concept of a fee tail, has largely been abolished in most jurisdictions today, meaning it is rarely applied in modern property law.

Examples:

• Scenario 1: No Existing Children

  Imagine in 1875, a wealthy aunt, Ms. Eleanor Vance, drafted a will stating, "I grant my country estate, 'The Oaks,' to my nephew, Charles, and his children." At the time Ms. Vance passed away and her will became legally effective, Charles was a young man, unmarried, and had no children. Under the Rule in Wild's Case, because Charles had no children when the grant became effective, the gift of The Oaks would have been interpreted as a fee tail. This would mean Charles owned the estate, but he could not sell it outright or leave it to anyone outside his direct descendants. The property was intended to remain within his family line for generations.

• Scenario 2: Existing Children

  Consider a situation in 1905 where Mr. Robert Sterling executed a deed transferring his lakeside cabin, "Whispering Pines," "to my daughter, Sarah, and her children." At the exact moment the deed was legally delivered and became effective, Sarah was married and had three young children: David, Lisa, and Mark. According to the Rule in Wild's Case, since Sarah had existing children (David, Lisa, and Mark) when the grant became effective, the cabin would have been interpreted as a joint tenancy. This meant Sarah, David, Lisa, and Mark would all own Whispering Pines together, with equal, undivided shares. If Sarah were to pass away, her share would automatically transfer to David, Lisa, and Mark as the surviving joint tenants, rather than passing through her will to other heirs.