Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Albert L. Ransom v. Phyllis Bebernitz, et al.
Date: 08-24-2001
Case Number: 2000-142
Judge: Amestoy
Court: Supreme Court of Vermont
Plaintiff's Attorney: John D. Hansen, Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Defendant's Attorney: Karl C. Anderson of Anderson & Eaton, P.C., Rutland, for Defendants-Appellants.
Description:
This appeal arises from a dispute among great great
grandchildren over their respective rights to a certain tract of land
conveyed by an 1882 probate decree according to the terms of their great
great grandfather's will. Defendants, members of the Anderson family,
appeal the Rutland Superior Court's judgment that plaintiff has a 9/31
interest in the subject land, and the court's order to partition of the
property. Defendants assert that the trial court erred in concluding that
(1) the 1882 probate decree is not subject to collateral attack on the
ground that the will violated the rule against perpetuities; (2) the will
did not violate the rule against perpetuities; (3) the defendants and
their predecessors in title did not establish a claim for adverse
possession; (4) plaintiff and his predecessors in title did not commit
laches.
grandchildren over their respective rights to a certain tract of land
conveyed by an 1882 probate decree according to the terms of their great
great grandfather's will. Defendants, members of the Anderson family,
appeal the Rutland Superior Court's judgment that plaintiff has a 9/31
interest in the subject land, and the court's order to partition of the
property. Defendants assert that the trial court erred in concluding that
(1) the 1882 probate decree is not subject to collateral attack on the
ground that the will violated the rule against perpetuities; (2) the will
did not violate the rule against perpetuities; (3) the defendants and
their predecessors in title did not establish a claim for adverse
possession; (4) plaintiff and his predecessors in title did not commit
laches.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.
Outcome:
Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None
About This Case
What was the outcome of Albert L. Ransom v. Phyllis Bebernitz, et al.?
The outcome was: Affirmed.
Which court heard Albert L. Ransom v. Phyllis Bebernitz, et al.?
This case was heard in Supreme Court of Vermont, VT. The presiding judge was Amestoy.
Who were the attorneys in Albert L. Ransom v. Phyllis Bebernitz, et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: John D. Hansen, Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellee.. Defendant's attorney: Karl C. Anderson of Anderson & Eaton, P.C., Rutland, for Defendants-Appellants..
When was Albert L. Ransom v. Phyllis Bebernitz, et al. decided?
This case was decided on August 24, 2001.