...661, 664(3), 44 S.E.2d 372 (1947), could not vest in anyone or constitute an inheritable interest until termination of the life estate. If this were correct, then the Rowell heirs could not take under Paragraph 4, because Ms. Rowell did not survive A. Folsom. The holding in Britt was based entirely on former OCGA § 44-6-63, which was repealed in 1994. Under that statute, a remainder interest would descend to the heirs of the remainderman if it was either vested or contingent as to an event, but not if it was contingent as to a person. At the same time that OCGA § 44-6-63 was repealed, the legislature also enacted a new statute which clearly made all remainder interests, whether vested or contingent, inheritable: "Future interests or estates are descendible, devisable, and alienable in the same manner as estates in possession." OCGA § 44-5-40....

...." [Cit.] The statutory change in the law [34] years after the testator's death relating to the inheritance rights of [remaindermen] . . . will not be given retrospective effect. [Cit.] Sardy v. Hodge, 264 Ga. 548, 549-550, 448 S.E.2d 355 (1994). Therefore, former OCGA § 44-6-63 governs the interest of the Rowell heirs....

...Rowell's remainder interest became vested subject to partial divestment prior to A. Folsom's death, and nothing in Paragraph 4 made that remainder interest contingent on survival, the Rowell heirs inherited their mother's remainder interest. Former OCGA § 44-6-63(a)....

...-in-law did not survive the life beneficiary. Thus, the Court reached the correct result. [11] See Chaffin, Studies in Georgia Law at 369 (can create nondescendible defeasible remainders by using very clear conditions of survivorship). [12] See OCGA § 44-6-63(a); Armstrong v....

...Lee’s daughter and two sons survived her, that interest flowed to them. Therefore, Madison Lee held a contingent interest in one-sixth of the Willingham share until his death. The question is whether that interest is inheritable by his sole heir at law, Ms. Gentner. We find the answer to the problem in OCGA § 44-6-63....

...We cannot agree that this limitation remained on the gifts once they vested in May Cole’s grandchildren. We agree with the trial court that the will of May Cole fixed a limitation upon the first taker but created no further posthumous control. For this reason, we hold that this case is controlled by OCGA § 44-6-63 and that the provisions of the will do not overcome the strong statement of policy contained in that statute. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. Smith, Gambrell & Russell, E....