Slaughter, J.
When Marcille Borcherding died, she left her estate in trust for her children. One trust provision says that her son’s interest will be distributed to him directly if he is unmarried at the time of her death; but if he is married when she dies, his interest will be held in trust. At issue is whether this provision is an unlawful restraint against marriage. We hold it is not. The statutory prohibition against restraints on marriage applies only to a devise to a spouse by will and not to other dispositions. We thus decline to apply the restraint-against-marriage prohibition to Borcherding’s trust provision. We hold further that her son’s ancillary due-process claim fails.
….
We turn next to the claim that the disputed trust provision is void as an unlawful restraint against marriage. Recall that the provision outlines two scenarios. If Rotert is unmarried at Borcherding’s death, he receives his interest outright. But if married, his share goes into a trust. Rotert argues the provision is void on public-policy grounds. Stiles argues the provision is a permissible “limitation” on Rotert’s interest, not an impermissible “condition”. We agree that Stiles is entitled to relief, but we do so on a different ground. We hold that the statutory prohibition of restraints against marriage applies only to dispositions to a spouse by will and not to dispositions by trust. We thus affirm the trial court without deciding whether this provision is a condition or a limitation.
First, the Indiana Probate Code says that “[a] devise to a spouse with a condition in restraint of marriage shall stand, but the condition shall be void.” Ind. Code § 29-1-6-3. Thus, our probate code prohibits restraints against marriage only if the restraint is in a “devise to a spouse”. Subsection 29-1-1-3(a) sets out the definitions that “apply throughout this article”, referring to the probate code. When used as a noun in the probate code, “devise” means “a testamentary disposition of either real or personal property or both.” Id. § 29-1-1-3(a)(6). And a “testamentary disposition”, though not defined by subsection 29-1-1-3(a), is something our Court has long considered the distinguishing feature of a will. See, e.g., Castor v. Jones, 86 Ind. 289, 290–91 (1882) (finding that an instrument, regardless of its form, was a will because its author intended to make a “testamentary disposition”). In other words, “the essence of a testamentary disposition” is “that it be purely posthumous in operation”. Heaston v. Kreig, 167 Ind. 101, 111, 77 N.E. 805, 807 (1906). We therefore consider wills as “tak[ing] effect after . . . death”, ibid., while recognizing that revocable trusts “are popular substitutes for wills” that allow settlors “to retain control and use of their assets during their lifetimes”, Fulp v. Gilliland, 998 N.E.2d 204, 205 (Ind. 2013). Thus, the legislature’s use of “devise” as a noun under subsection 29-1-1-3(a)(6) is consistent with its use as a verb under subsection 29-1-1-3(a)(7): “‘devise’ . . . means to dispose of either real or personal property or both by will.”
Hence, under section 29-1-6-3’s plain language, its prohibition applies only to devises, i.e., gifts made by will. And the statute applies only to devises “to a spouse”. Here, we have neither a testamentary devise nor a devise to a spouse but a disposition by a revocable trust to a child. The statutory prohibition under our probate code does not apply.
Second, neither does the Indiana Trust Code prohibit the challenged provision. In fact, the trust code does not prohibit conditions in restraint of marriage at all. What it prohibits is ignoring the settlor’s intent (and where relevant, the trust’s purpose) as manifested in the trust’s plain terms….
….
Finally, although the parties dispute whether the challenged provision is a condition or limitation, we need not answer this question today because our decision rests on other grounds. We wonder, though, whether the historic distinction between a condition (impermissible) and a limitation (permissible) will survive when squarely before us….
….
Because Rotert’s due-process claim fails on this record, he is not entitled to relief. And because the probate code’s bar against restraints on marriage does not apply to trusts or gifts to children, Borcherding’s disposition by a revocable trust to her son is valid. We thus affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Stiles and against Rotert.
Rush, C.J., and David and Massa, JJ., concur.
Goff, J., concurs in result with separate opinion.
Goff, J., concurring in result.
I agree with the Court that Rotert, having had notice of, and multiple opportunities to respond to, Stiles’ cross-motion for summary judgment, is entitled to no relief for his due-process claim. I also agree that Rotert loses on his restraint-of-marriage claim. On this latter issue, however, I would conclude that the prohibition against restraints on marriage should apply to testamentary trusts, not just to wills. And based on that conclusion, I would affirm the trial court by holding that, because Rotert’s interests in the estate vested “at the time of” the settlor’s death, the terms of the Trust amounted to permissible conditions of acquisition rather than impermissible conditions of retention.
I. Our Trust Code prohibits conditions in restraint of marriage as a violation of public policy.
….
II. Only conditions that operate to divest a beneficiary of property upon the occurrence of some event are void.
….
A. Because Rotert’s property interests vested at the time of Borcherding’s death, the Trust imposed permissible conditions of acquisition (rather than impermissible conditions of retention).
….
B. Once Rotert’s share of the estate vested, no Trust conditions operated to divest him of that share upon the happening of some subsequent event—whether divorce or continuation of the marriage.
….
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I agree with the Court that Rotert is entitled to no relief for either his due-process claim or his restraint-of-marriage claim. However, I would conclude that the prohibition against restraints on marriage applies to testamentary trusts and not just to wills. And based on that conclusion, I would affirm the trial court by holding that, because Rotert’s interests in the estate vested “at the time of” the testator’s death, the terms of the Trust amounted to permissible conditions of acquisition rather than impermissible conditions of retention