Legal Definitions - Wild's Case, Rule in

The Rule in Wild's Case is a legal principle used by courts to interpret ambiguous language in a will, specifically when property is left "to a person and their children." This rule helps determine whether the parent receives the entire property outright, or if the parent and their children share the property together. It acts as a presumption, meaning it applies unless the will clearly expresses a different intention.

The rule generally operates in two main ways:

• If the designated parent has no children at the time the will takes effect (usually the testator's death), the parent is presumed to receive the entire property as a full owner. The phrase "and their children" is interpreted as an intention for the property to pass through the parent's lineage, rather than creating an immediate shared ownership with non-existent children.
• If the designated parent does have children at the time the will takes effect, the parent and their children are presumed to share the property together as co-owners (e.g., as tenants in common or joint tenants, depending on the jurisdiction and specific wording).

Here are some examples illustrating the Rule in Wild's Case:

• Example 1: Parent with No Children

  Imagine a will states, "I leave my vacation cabin to my niece, Clara, and her children." At the time the person who made the will passes away, Clara is married but has not yet had any children. According to the Rule in Wild's Case, because Clara has no children when the will takes effect, the phrase "and her children" is interpreted as an indication that the property should ultimately pass down through Clara's family line. In modern legal terms, this typically means Clara would receive full ownership of the vacation cabin (a fee simple absolute), rather than sharing it with future, non-existent children.

• Example 2: Parent with Existing Children

  Consider a will that reads, "My entire stock portfolio goes to my son, Robert, and his children." When the will becomes effective, Robert has two living children, David and Lisa. Under the Rule in Wild's Case, since Robert has existing children, the gift is interpreted as being made to Robert and his children concurrently. This means Robert, David, and Lisa would likely own the stock portfolio together as co-owners, with each having an immediate share in the assets.

• Example 3: Overriding the Presumption with Clear Intent

  Suppose a will states, "I give my apartment building to my sister, Maria, and her children, but Maria shall have the right to all rental income during her lifetime, and upon her death, the building shall pass equally to her children." At the time the will takes effect, Maria has three children. While Maria has children, the will explicitly outlines a different distribution: Maria receives a life interest (the right to income for life), and her children receive the property only after her death. This clear statement of the testator's intent overrides the presumption of the Rule in Wild's Case, which would otherwise suggest Maria and her children share the property immediately. The court would follow the specific instructions laid out in the will.