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

jurisdictionstatuteappealhearingprobatetrustwillappellant
jurisdictionstatuteappealhearingtrialmotionprobatetrustwillappellantappellee

Related Cases

Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 381 U.S. 923, 85 S.Ct. 1558 (Mem), 14 L.Ed.2d 682
View Case »
Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto, 27 Cal.App.4th 1669, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 244
View Case »
Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805
View Case »
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617, 138 S.Ct. 1719, 201 L.Ed.2d 35, 102 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 46,050, 86 USLW 4335, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5293, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5291, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 289
View Case »
Round Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., 967 F.Supp.2d 969
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Hickok’s Will, 61 N.M. 204, 297 P.2d 866, 1956 -NMSC- 035

Facts

The appellants are nineteen charities named in the will of Arthur S. Hickok, who died in 1945. They claimed a remainder interest in properties located in New Mexico but were not notified of the probate proceedings or the final account hearing. The executors of Hickok's estate, including his daughter, were involved in the proceedings, and the charities argued that the final decree was void due to lack of notice.

The appellants are nineteen of twenty named charities for whom provision was made under testamentary trust provisions in the will of Arthur S. Hickok, deceased, who died in 1945. These charities appeal from the denial of their motion in the court below, the District Court of Lincoln County, to set aside its final decree in ancillary probate proceedings upon the estate of said decedent, who at the time of his death was a resident of and domiciled in Ohio.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the charities had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute granting concurrent jurisdiction to district courts and whether the final decree was void due to lack of notice.

Appellants have raised three points on this appeal: (1) That the statute purporting to vest in the district courts of this state jurisdiction concurrent with that of the probate courts over the administration of estates, § 16–3–20, NMSA, 1953 is unconstitutional; (a point raised first in this Court) (2) That the final decree is void as to them because they were not served with notice of hearing upon the final account and report; (3) That the trial court erred in not admitting in evidence an exhibit said to contain admissions by some of the executors that they still held certain stock which was an asset of the corpus of the trust estate established by the will of decedent, and which exhibit is further said to have a bearing upon the issue of laches on the part of appellants asserted by appellees in the lower court.

Rule

The court applied the principle that probate proceedings are special statutory proceedings and that the legislature has the power to confer concurrent jurisdiction upon district courts over probate matters.

It is held by a majority of courts that a trust is not executed where the trustee is directed by the will or trust instrument to convey the corpus to the beneficiaries; that the direction to convey makes the trust active.

Analysis

The court analyzed the standing of the charities to challenge the jurisdiction of the district court and concluded that they did not have standing to question the constitutionality of the statute. The court also found that the charities were not entitled to notice of the final account and report because their interests were contingent and they were represented by the trustees.

The argument of appellants is, in substance, (a) that they are remaindermen and devisees upon the theory the trustees have only the duty of parcelling out the corpus of the trust estate to them at the expiration of twenty years, and, although designated as beneficiaries, their interest is really legal rather than equitable; or, (b) that although they are given only an equitable interest, nevertheless they should be considered to be in the class with ‘heirs, legatees and devisees' under the provisions of our statute for service of notice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the charities' appeal was without merit and that the final decree was valid.

The action of the trial court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the executors of the estate, as the court upheld the validity of the final decree and the jurisdiction of the district court.

The action of the trial court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.

You must be