Also known as: progenitors · progener · ancestor · forebear
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An ancestor or genetic parent from whom lineal descendants or issue are traced for purposes of class gifts, intestate succession, and disputes over reproductive material.
Pablo Perez funds a trust leaving property to his descendants without specifying shares. When the interest vests in possession, the living descendants receive shares matching intestate succession as if Pablo Perez had died then owning the assets. The rule treats Pablo Perez as the designated progenitor whose death triggers the distribution calculation.
Philip Powell deeds land to his issue. The deed contains no contrary language. Under the default rule, issue includes Philip Powell's children and all more remote lineal descendants. The term therefore reaches grandchildren and great-grandchildren as descendants of the progenitor.
Penelope Price and Pierre Poulin sign clinic forms before creating embryos through IVF. After separation, Penelope Price seeks implantation under the forms while Pierre Poulin demands destruction. The court first enforces any prior agreement between the progenitors. Absent an enforceable agreement it balances their interests, generally favoring the party seeking to avoid procreation.
Patricia Patel leaves property to her descendants per capita at each generation. At distribution the nearest generation contains two surviving children and one deceased child who left two living grandchildren. The estate divides into three shares: one to each surviving child and one divided equally between the two grandchildren of the progenitor.
Phoebe Park's will directs distribution per stirpes to her issue. She is survived by one child and by two grandchildren from a predeceased child. The estate splits into two shares: one to the surviving child and one subdivided equally between the two grandchildren, repeating the process at each generation from the progenitor.
A state coastal council defends a regulation by tracing its authority to early nuisance cases. The court notes that those early decisions were the progenitor of contemporary statements that land-use rules advancing legitimate state interests do not effect a taking. The analysis therefore begins with the historical source rather than later formulations.
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, for $975,000. He intended to construct single-family homes on the parcels, which at the time were zoned for such use and required no building permit for development. No portion of the lots qualified as a critical area under then-existing coastal zone legislation. Subsequently, in 1988, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. The legislation established a baseline and prohibited construction of occupable improvements seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of that baseline, directly affecting Lucas's parcels by barring any permanent habitable structures. Lucas filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Act's restrictions effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Following a bench trial, the court determined that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless and ordered the state to pay just compensation in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court's judgment. It accepted the legislature's findings that new construction threatened public resources and concluded that a regulation designed to prevent serious public harm could not constitute a taking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.
View caseThe property passes to living class members at the distribution date in the shares they would receive under intestate succession if the designated progenitor had died then owning the assets.
Supporting sources
The designated ancestor's descendants of the first and more remote generations, reaching all lineal descendants unless the instrument shows a contrary intention.
Supporting sources
Courts first enforce any prior agreement between the progenitors. Absent such an agreement, they balance the parties' interests, with the interest in avoiding procreation generally prevailing absent compelling circumstances.
Supporting sources
The estate divides into shares equal to the number of surviving children plus deceased children who left surviving descendants, with each deceased child's share subdivided at the next generation until fully allocated.
Supporting sources
…similarly situated property." 438 U. S., at 133-134, n. 30. "Harmful or noxious use" analysis was, in other words, simply the progenitor of our more contemporary statements that "land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests' . . . ." Nollan, supra , at 834 (quoting…