Deiss v. Deiss
Illinois Court of Appeals
536 N.E.2d 120 (1989)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Katie Deiss (plaintiff) and her husband Rudolph owned a house and multiple pieces of farmland. Katie and Rudolph created an irrevocable trust to govern the distribution of the property to their four sons, Orville, Rudolph Jr., Merle, and LeRoy. Under the provisions of the trust, Orville as the trustee would manage the real estate, lease a portion of it to himself and the other pieces to his brothers for farming, and pay Katie and Rudolph the income. The trust provided that upon either Katie or Rudolph’s death, the income would be paid to the survivor, and upon the survivor’s death and the payment of any remaining mortgages, the property would be divided between the brothers with any remainder interests passing to the brothers’ heirs. Rudolph died in 1973. In 1987, Katie filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to have the trust declared void on the grounds that it violated the rule against perpetuities. Merle, LeRoy, and Katie’s living grandchildren and great-grandchildren (defendants) opposed Katie’s complaint and asserted that because their interests had already vested, the rule against perpetuities did not apply. The trial court held that the trust did not violate the rule against perpetuities and denied Katie’s petition. Katie appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCullough, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
