Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementplaintifftrustwill
settlementprobatetrustwill

Related Cases

Northern Trust Co. v. Porter, 368 Ill. 256, 13 N.E.2d 487
View Case »
Reznik v. McKee, 216 Kan. 659, 534 P.2d 243
View Case »
McArthur v. Scott, 113 U.S. 340, 5 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 1015, 5 Ohio F.Dec. 357
View Case »
Buell v. Gardner, 83 Misc. 513, 144 N.Y.S. 945, 11 Mills 375
View Case »
Vaupel v. Barr, 194 W.Va. 296, 460 S.E.2d 431
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Belfield v. Booth, 63 Conn. 299, 27 A. 585

Facts

Elon Booth's will provided for certain bequests and established a trust for the distribution of his residuary estate after a period of fourteen years. The executor and trustee named in the will was removed from office, leading to a dispute among the heirs and legatees regarding the validity of the will's provisions. The plaintiffs, including the widow of Orville Booth and their grandchildren, contested the validity of the residuary provisions, claiming they contravened the common-law rule against perpetuities. The court remanded the case for the substitution of a suitable next friend for the minor grandchildren before rearguing the case.

The will of Elon Booth, after providing for certain bequests and charges, proceeds as follows: 'After the above bequests have been complied with, and the executor has settled with the judge of probate, my will is that the remainder of my estate be paid over to the trustee hereinafter named.'

Issue

Did the provisions of Elon Booth's will for the distribution of his residuary estate violate the common-law rule against perpetuities?

It is claimed in behalf of the heirs at law that both the trust to support the annuities and the residuary bequests are in contravention of the common-law rule against perpetuities.

Rule

The common-law rule against perpetuities prohibits the postponement of the vesting of an estate beyond a certain period, typically measured as a life in being plus twenty-one years.

The law will not favor a construction which suspends the title or holds it in abeyance.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will's provisions and determined that the time for the division of the trust estate was not too remote, as the estate's settlement was expected to occur within a reasonable time after the testator's death. The court emphasized that the testator's intent was to benefit the grandchildren and the adopted daughter, and that the provisions did not suspend the title or hold it in abeyance. The court concluded that the trust would commence upon the proper settlement of the estate, which would not be delayed beyond seven years.

It is our opinion that the trust established by Elon Booth will commence at the time when the accounts of the executor or administrator of his estate are, or should be, settled in the due course of administration; and that this time cannot be delayed so long as seven years from his decease.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the provisions of the will for dividing the residuary estate among the grandchildren of Orville Booth and the adopted daughter of Delana Brinsmade were valid and enforceable. The court advised the superior court that the trust and its terms were legally sound.

The provisions of the will for dividing the residuary estate among the grandchildren of Orville Booth and Mrs. Gregory, the adopted daughter of Delana Brinsmade, and for the constitution of a trust, and the accumulation of the trust estate for the period of 14 years from the settlement of the executor's account, and for certain yearly payments during said period, are each and all valid.

Who won?

Susan B. Belfield, administratrix d. b n. of the estate of Elon Booth, and others prevailed in the case as the court upheld the validity of the will's provisions.

The executor and trustee whom the testator selected to carry out the provisions of his will was removed from the office of executor, though not from that of trustee.

You must be