TRUSTS AND ESTATES; LIABILITY, LEGAL;

You asked whether it is possible for the legislature to terminate a specific life-estate. You also asked what remedies are available under current law when the person holding the life estate damages or fails to keep in good repair the property that is the subject of the life estate. Our office is not authorized to give legal opinions and this should not be construed as one.

SUMMARY

A life estate is an interest in real property with a duration measured by the life of a person or group of people. When that person or people die, the life estate is extinguished and the property automatically goes to the person or people who have a remainder interest in the property.

Legislation that terminates a specific life estate would be subject to a significant constitutional challenge. Connecticut’s constitution prohibits legislation that confers a special benefit or privilege on an individual unless the legislation serves a valid public purpose. This prohibition would not interfere with legislation that conferred a generally applicable remedy for all people who are being injured because a person holding a life estate damages the property or fails to keep it in good repair.

Current law provides some remedies for people who are in such a situation. Anyone who holds a life estate and damages the property or fails to keep it in good repair is liable for damages unless he was explicitly authorized by the will or the other document that created the life estate to do the acts complained of. Also, the court may order the holder of the life estate to make repairs, or to do or stop doing certain activities relating to the property’s condition. The law also gives a lien to anyone who has a vested remainder interest in the property who paid for necessary repairs or improvements to the property. As noted above, a person has a remainder interest if he will receive an estate after a particular estate carved out of it has expired. This law gives the probate court for the district in which the property is located the authority to determine the amount of money necessarily expended and to order the sale of so much of the property as is necessary to repay the sum that has been advanced.

LEGISLATION TO TERMINATE A LIFE ESTATE

Article 1, § 1, of Connecticut’s Constitution provides: “All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community. ” The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that this constitutional provision invalidates state laws that grant emoluments or privileges to individuals unless there is a valid public purpose (Commission of Public Works v. City of Middletown, 53 Conn. App. 438, cert. denied 250 Conn. 923 (1999); Chotkowski v. State, 240 Conn. 246 (1997); City of Shelton v. Commissioner of Department of Environmental Protection, 193 Conn. 506 (1984)). The court has also held that no state law creating a preference can withstand a constitutional under this provision if the sole objective is to grant personal challenge gain or advantage to an individual unless it furthers a valid public purpose (State ex rel. Higgins v. Civil Service Commission of City of Bridgeport, 139 Conn. 102 (1952)). Whether a statute serves a public purpose rests in the legislature’s sound discretion, which the courts will not override if the legislation is supportable on any reasonable public purpose ground. But if there is no public purpose, express or apparent, the courts will declare such legislation unconstitutional (Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310 (1952)).

REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR DAMAGES TO OR LACK OF REPAIR TO PROPERTY

CGS § 52-563 makes the holder of a life estate liable if he commits waste upon the property that is subject to the life estate unless his actions are explicitly authorized by the will or other document that created the life estate. The law sometimes refers to those who hold the life estate as the life tenant. In construing this statute our Supreme Court has held that a life tenant has the duty to make ordinary repairs (1) required to remedy presently existing conditions of substantial disrepair that may have injured the property substantially or permanently, and (2) make ordinary repairs necessary to prevent the property from declining to the point where its deterioration, and the resulting injuring to the inheritance, is substantial or permanent (Zauner v. Berwer, 220 Conn. 176 (1991)).

A life tenant is bound to kept the land and the structures comprising the life estate in as good repair as they were when he took them, except for ordinary and natural wear and tear (Ferguson v. Rochford, 84 Conn. 202 (1911); Zauner v. Berwer, 220 Conn. 176 (1991)). Our court has said that discharging this duty includes preventative ordinary repairs: “If a new roof is needed, the life tenant is bound to put it on; if paint wears off, he is bound to repaint. ” (Ferguson v. Rochford at 205).

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that this statute authorizes the court to order the life tenant to (1) make repairs, (2) engage in, or cease to engage in, certain other activities, and (3) pay damages. (Zauner v. Berwer, at 191).

LIEN FOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS UPON REAL PROPERTY

The law also gives a lien for money expended to anyone who (1) has a remainder interest in real property in which another person has a life interest and (2) has paid any money for necessary repairs or improvements to that real property (CGS § 45-334). This law gives the probate court for the district in which the property is situated, upon written application of the person who expended money, the authority to determine the amount of the lien and, if necessary, order the sale of as much of the property to repay the sum owed.

If this lien is considered inadequate security, the court can take other action. One alternative is to retain the life tenancy but to secure the preservation and maintenance of the property by placing the responsibility for its general upkeep and ordinary expenses in the hands of a trustee who will administer it separately from a separate fund of money. If this alternative is acceptable, it maybe possible to avoid the life tenancy altogether by placing title to the property in trust (Ralph Felson, Probate Litigation in Connecticut 2^nd § 2: 6).

GC: ts