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

jurisdictionequityprobatetrustwilldeclaratory judgment
trialpleaprobatetrustrespondent

Related Cases

Institution for Savings in Roxbury and Its Vicinity v. Roxbury Home for Aged Women, 244 Mass. 583, 139 N.E. 301
View Case »
In re Estate of Vincent, 98 S.W.3d 146
View Case »
In re Kohler’s Estate, 348 Pa. 55, 33 A.2d 920
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Watson, 21 Kan.App.2d 133, 896 P.2d 401
View Case »
DeMaris v. Asti, 426 So.2d 1153
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

National Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Morey, 320 Mass. 492, 70 N.E.2d 316, 174 A.L.R. 871

Facts

Edwin Morey died in 1907, leaving a will that established a trust with several life beneficiaries. The trustees sought a declaratory judgment to clarify whether the remainder interests in the trust were vested or contingent, as the distribution time had not yet arrived due to the continued survival of some life beneficiaries. Additionally, there was a dispute regarding the treatment of a ten percent balance of income that had been retained by the trustees instead of being distributed to the heirs.

The book value of the principal of the trust estate at the time of the filing of this petition was $938,158.44. The testator died thirty-nine years ago, leaving his widow and three children surviving him. All of the testator's children have now deceased. Two of them left a child or children surviving them, who were grandchildren of the testator.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the term 'heirs' in the will referred to those who were heirs at the time of the testator's death or those who would be heirs at the death of the last surviving life beneficiary.

The question which the petitioners in their petition and most, but not all, of the respondents in their answers ask the court to decide is the timeworn question whether ‘heirs' meant those who were such at the death of the testator or those who would be such if he died immediately after the death of the last surviving life beneficiary—in other words, whether the remainder interests in the trust are vested or contingent.

Rule

The court applied principles of equity jurisdiction and statutory provisions allowing for declaratory judgments in probate matters, emphasizing the discretion of the court in deciding whether to grant such relief.

It is plain that section 6B, under which this suit is brought, conferred plenary power upon the Probate Court.

Analysis

The court found that while it had jurisdiction to declare the nature of the future interests under the will, it was not required to do so as a matter of right. The judge exercised discretion against making a declaration regarding the vesting of remainders, noting that there was no pressing necessity for a present decision and that the interests of unborn heirs should not be determined prematurely.

In determining whether the discretion of the trial judge was rightly exercised it becomes necessary to examine more closely into the facts shown by the pleadings and evidence, about most of which at least there appears to be no dispute.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Probate Court's decree, modifying it to clarify that the ten percent of excess income had been properly added to the principal of the trust and should continue to be treated as such until the trust's termination.

It follows from what has been said that the decree must be modified by striking out that part of it dealing with the transfer to principal of the ten per cent of excess income and substituting therefor an adjudication that this income has heretofore been properly added to principal and an instruction that the trustees should continue to add to principal ten per cent of any similar excess income hereafter accruing, and as modified the decree is affirmed.

Who won?

The trustees prevailed in part, as the court affirmed their handling of the ten percent excess income, but they did not receive a declaratory judgment regarding the nature of the remainder interests.

The trustees therefore rightly added the ten per cent of excess income to principal and should continue in the future to add the ten per cent of excess income, if any, to principal and should distribute it as part of the principal when the trust comes to an end.

You must be