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

plaintiffdefendanttrustwill

trustwillappellant

Related Cases

Betchard v. Iverson, 35 Wash.2d 344, 212 P.2d 783

Facts

Frank Betchard died leaving a will that established a trust for his wife, Grace Barbara Betchard, and his grandchildren. The will specified monthly payments to Grace for her lifetime and outlined how the remainder of the estate would be distributed among his grandchildren, including those born after his death. The plaintiff contended that the trust violated the rule against perpetuities because it included after-born grandchildren, potentially delaying the vesting of their interests beyond the allowed time frame.

Appellant is the second wife and widow of Frank Betchard, deceased, who died December 24, 1947, leaving surviving his widow, his daughter, Marie K. Iverson, age thirty-six years, and two grandsons, Norman Clyde Iverson and Jeffrey Betchard Iverson, age six and five years, respectively.

Issue

Does the trust created by Frank Betchard's will contravene the rule against perpetuities due to the inclusion of after-born grandchildren?

It is the contention of appellant that the trust created by the will contravenes the rule against perpetuities for the reason that the gift is one to a class—testator's grandchildren; that the class includes members born subsequent to testator's death; but that there is no provision made for the vesting or enjoyment of the interest of any children born to Marie K. Iverson more than twenty-one years after the death of the testator.

Rule

The rule against perpetuities prohibits the creation of future estates that may not become vested within a life or lives in being at the time of the testator's death and twenty-one years thereafter.

The rule against perpetuities prohibits the creation of future estates which, by possibility, may not become vested within a life or lives in being at the time of the testator's death and twenty-one years thereafter.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will's provisions and determined that the trust did not violate the rule against perpetuities. It concluded that while the class of beneficiaries included after-born grandchildren, the testator explicitly stated that the distribution of principal to any such children must occur within twenty-one years of his death. This provision effectively closed the class and established a maximum membership, ensuring that the trust's vesting would occur within the permissible time frame.

The will clearly indicates a class gift. The trust fund is an aggregate sum—the testator's residuary estate; the persons who will eventually take were uncertain in number at the time of testator's death and to be ascertained at a future time because testator has included after-born grandchildren; they are to receive equal shares; and the share of each will depend on the ultimate number of children born to Marie K. Iverson.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trust created for the benefit of the testator's grandchildren does not violate the rule against perpetuities.

We conclude, therefore, that by the terms of the will, the trust created for the benefit of testator's grandchildren does not violate the rule.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed because the court found that the trust's provisions complied with the rule against perpetuities.

The court affirmed the judgment, and held that a trust created by will did not contravene the rule against perpetuities.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sicchio v. Alvey, 10 Wis.2d 528, 103 N.W.2d 544

Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311, 2 Mich.N.P.Supp. 84, 1871 WL 2990, 7 Am.Rep. 653

Gamble v. New Orleans Housing Mart, Inc., 154 So.2d 625

Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643

Schwab v. Timmons, 224 Wis.2d 27, 589 N.W.2d 1