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

trust
appealtrialtrustwillappellantappellee

Related Cases

Devine v. Cote, 109 N.H. 235, 248 A.2d 77
View Case »
Dauray v. Mee, 109 A.3d 832
View Case »
Clymer v. Mayo, 393 Mass. 754, 473 N.E.2d 1084
View Case »
Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Pratt, 117 Misc. 708, 193 N.Y.S. 152
View Case »
Kerwin v. Donaghy, 317 Mass. 559, 59 N.E.2d 299
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Dooley Trust, 383 P.3d 773, 2016 OK 110

Facts

David L. Dooley created a trust and appointed himself as the initial trustee, with his wife Carolyn Ann Collins as a beneficiary. After his death, the trust was divided into two parts, with specific bequests to his grandchildren, Erin and David O'Donoghue. Both grandchildren died without lineal descendants, leading to a dispute over whether their interests in the trust principal lapsed or vested. The wife argued that the gifts lapsed upon their deaths, while the grandchildren's estate contended that the interests vested and should pass to them.

David L. Dooley (the Settlor) created the David L. Dooley Trust (Trust) on September 12, 2003, appointing himself as the initial trustee for his own benefit. The Settlor also established a pour-over will in which the Trust was the sole beneficiary. This same date, the Settlor married the Appellee, Carolyn Ann Collins, his partner of over thirteen years. The Settlor died a little over one month later on October 20, 2003, with all four of his children having predeceased him.

Issue

Whether the per stirpes gift of any remaining trust principal to the settlor's grandchildren, who died without lineal descendants, may ultimately be distributed to the widow of one of the grandchildren.

Whether the per stirpes gift of any remaining Trust principal left to two of Settlor's grandchildren, who have died without lineal descendants, may ultimately be distributed to the widow of one of the grandchildren.

Rule

The intention of the settlor controls the construction of a trust, and where a trust specifically makes the distribution of a bequest per stirpes, the spouse of a devisee is not a lineal descendant and is ineligible to take under a per stirpes method of distribution.

In construing the terms of a trust, the intention of the settlor of the trust should control.

Analysis

The court analyzed the trust's language and the settlor's intent, concluding that the remainder interests of the grandchildren were contingent upon their survival and lapsed upon their deaths without lineal descendants. The court emphasized that the term 'per stirpes' indicated that the gifts were intended for lineal descendants, which the grandchildren did not have, thus affirming that the trust principal passed to the settlor's wife.

The Court of Civil Appeals agreed with Appellant and found that Erin and David's “heirs” should receive their “shares as representatives of their deceased ancestor.” We would agree with this decision if Erin and David had left lineal descendants as required by the Trust term “per stirpes,” but they did not.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the trust principal passed to the wife rather than to the grandchildren's estates upon their deaths.

Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affirmed.

Who won?

Carolyn Ann Collins, the settlor's wife, prevailed because the court found that the trust principal lapsed upon the deaths of the grandchildren without lineal descendants, and thus passed to her.

Appellee argues that Erin and David's interests in the remainder never vested because Appellee is still alive and, upon their deaths, neither Erin nor David left a lineal descendant.

You must be