McIntyre v. Scarbrough

Supreme Court of Georgia · 1996 · Property

471 S.E.2d 199 (1996)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyLife estatesWastelife estateremaindermenforfeituread valorem taxesoccupancy

Facts

In 1988, the Scarbroughs bought a 16.59-acre tract from McIntyre by warranty deed, while McIntyre reserved a life estate in 1.2 acres containing a mobile home, porch, and shed. The deed provided that the life estate lasted during McIntyre's natural life and during her occupancy of the tract as a personal residence, and it made her responsible for maintenance, upkeep, and payment of ad valorem taxes. On summary judgment, the Scarbroughs presented evidence that McIntyre had not been seen on the property since 1990, that the mobile home lacked water and gas service, that the structure was dilapidated, and that taxes had accrued and were paid by Mrs. Scarbrough to protect the remainder interest. McIntyre responded that she had been away for health reasons, intended to return, had left her belongings there, and had undertaken repairs through her grandson.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly terminated McIntyre's life estate on summary judgment either because she failed to occupy the property as a personal residence or because she committed waste. More specifically, the court had to decide whether absence for medical reasons defeated occupancy as a matter of law and whether the undisputed evidence of nonpayment of taxes and failure to preserve the property established forfeiture for waste.

Rule

A person may occupy a residence by holding or keeping it for use, so permanent physical presence is not required to satisfy an occupancy condition in a deed. A life tenant is entitled to full use and enjoyment only if she exercises the ordinary care of a prudent person for the property's preservation and protection and commits no acts permanently injuring the remainder interest; undisputed nonpayment of ad valorem taxes, especially where the deed also expressly requires payment, can constitute waste resulting in forfeiture of the life estate as a matter of law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Asheville, North Carolina, Nora Ellison deeded farmland to Devin and Mara Pike, reserving a life estate in a cottage "for Nora's natural life and during her occupancy of the cottage as her personal residence." After a stroke, Nora spent 18 months in a rehabilitation center in Knoxville, left all of her furniture and clothing in the cottage, and repeatedly told family she intended to return when able.

If the Pikes move for summary judgment solely on the ground that Nora no longer "occupies" the cottage, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion construed "occupy" broadly to mean holding possession of or keeping property for use, not merely physically dwelling there at all times. Evidence that the life tenant left belongings in the home and intended to return created a fact question on occupancy. Therefore, absence for medical reasons alone does not establish non-occupancy as a matter of law.