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

trustwill

appealtrustwillrespondent

Related Cases

Matter of Estate of Kreuzer, 243 A.D.2d 207, 674 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 06198

Facts

Christa J. Kreuzer executed her will on December 6, 1994, and died shortly thereafter on December 19, 1994. She was survived by her son, Keith Kreuzer, her daughter, and her daughter's children. The will included provisions for two testamentary trusts for the benefit of the children of her daughter and son, with specific age contingencies for distribution. The petitioner challenged the validity of these trusts, claiming they violated the rule against perpetuities.

Following the execution of the will on December 6, 1994, decedent died on December 19, 1994 survived by her son, respondent Keith Kreuzer (hereinafter Kreuzer) (born in 1963), her daughter, petitioner (born in 1960), and petitioner's daughter, Heather (born in 1991).

Issue

Did the testamentary trusts established in the will of Christa J. Kreuzer violate the rule against perpetuities as codified in EPTL 9–1.1 (b)?

The question presented on this appeal is whether the testamentary trusts established in paragraph seventh of the last will and testament of Christa J. Kreuzer (hereinafter decedent) violated EPTL 9–1.1 (b), the rule against perpetuities.

Rule

The rule against perpetuities states that no interest in property is valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest.

The rule against perpetuities embodies the principle that “it is socially undesirable for property to be inalienable for an unreasonable period of time” (Symphony Space v. Pergola Props., 88 N.Y.2d 466, 475, 646 N.Y.S.2d 641, 669 N.E.2d 799).

Analysis

The court analyzed the testamentary trusts and determined that while the maximum membership of the class could be ascertained within the perpetuities period, the minimum membership could not due to the contingent nature of the gifts. The trusts specified that distribution would occur when the youngest class member reached 35 years of age, which created a potential for the gifts to not vest within the required time frame. However, the court noted that the trusts could be modified to comply with the rule by changing the age from 35 to 21 years.

Despite the rule violation, however, trust A and trust B need not be invalidated in this case. EPTL 9–1.2 provides as follows: Where an estate would, except for this section, be invalid because made to depend, for its vesting or its duration, upon any person attaining or failing to attain an age in excess of twenty-one years, the age contingency shall be reduced to twenty-one years as to any or all persons subject to such contingency.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the testamentary trusts violated the rule against perpetuities but could be modified to comply with the law by reducing the age for distribution to 21 years. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by directing that the phrase “attaining the age of twenty-one (21) years” in the testamentary trusts be substituted for those provisions directing distribution upon the last of the beneficiaries “attaining the age of thirty-five years (35)”, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the estate, as the court ultimately upheld the validity of the trusts with modifications to comply with the rule against perpetuities.

The Surrogate's Court determined that the testamentary trusts did not violate the rule and were not void for remoteness.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sheridan v. Krause, 161 Va. 873, 172 S.E. 508, 91 A.L.R. 1067

In re Tillinghast, 23 R.I. 121, 49 A. 634

Lux v. Lux, 109 R.I. 592, 288 A.2d 701

Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Ireland, 268 Mass. 62, 167 N.E. 261, 64 A.L.R. 1071

Meserve v. Haak, 191 Mass. 220, 77 N.E. 377