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

plaintifftrialtrustcommon law
plaintiffappealtrialprobatetrustwill

Related Cases

Da Silva v. Musso, 76 N.Y.2d 436, 559 N.E.2d 1268, 560 N.Y.S.2d 109
View Case »
Skansi v. Novak, 84 Wash. 39, 146 P. 160
View Case »
Stephens v. Mann, 50 N.C.App. 133, 272 S.E.2d 771
View Case »
Thompson v. Godfrey, 191 Kan. 102, 379 P.2d 269
View Case »
Apple Corps Ltd. v. A.D.P.R., Inc., 843 F.Supp. 342, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1372, 22 Media L. Rep. 1562
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Schaeffer v. Newberry, 235 Minn. 282, 50 N.W.2d 477

Facts

The case involves a parcel of land devised to the Village of Elbow Lake by Edward J. Scofield to be used as a public park. Following Scofield's death in 1926, the village council took steps to accept the land, including applying for tax cancellation and maintaining the property as a park. However, the plaintiff contended that the village did not properly accept the devise, leading to the dispute over the title to the property.

The pertinent events leading up to the action to quiet title extend over a period of 25 years commencing with the death of the testator on May 10, 1926. In November 1927, following the admission of his will to probate, the village council at a regular meeting authorized an application to the county board of Grant county for the cancellation of unpaid taxes on the land in question. The application was granted, statutory proceedings held, and the taxes cancelled. Since that time no taxes have been assessed against the property.

Issue

Did the village properly accept the devise of land for public park use, thereby establishing a valid charitable trust?

The primary issue on appeal concerns the procedural formalities necessary for a village to validly accept a devise of land ‘to be used for a public park.’

Rule

A devise of land to a municipality for a public park creates a charitable trust, and the acceptance of such a trust is governed by common law rules rather than statutory requirements.

Devise of land to village ‘to be used for a public park’ Held to create a valid charitable trust under M.S.A. s 501.11(7). Village council's acceptance as trustee of charitable trust created under first paragraph of s 501.11(7) Held governed by common-law rules and not by M.S.A. 1945, s 465.03.

Analysis

The court analyzed the actions of the village council, which included applying for tax cancellation and maintaining the property as a park, as evidence of valid acceptance of the charitable trust. The court found that the absence of an express acceptance in the council minutes did not negate the village's acceptance, as acceptance can be inferred from conduct.

Since nothing in s 501.11(7) specifies the procedure by which a village as trustee must accept a charitable trust created thereunder, the common-law rules concerning acceptance of trusts by trustees apply. Acceptance of a trust need not be express, but may be inferred from conduct of the trustee. In the instant case, the village council applied for cancellation of unpaid taxes, fenced the land, and maintained a deer park at its own expense. This conduct constitutes evidence from which the court could find that a valid acceptance of the trust had been made by the village.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the village had validly accepted the land as a charitable trust and that the plaintiff's claim to title must fail.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Village of Elbow Lake, as the court found that the village had validly accepted the land under the charitable trust established by the devise.

The court was amply justified in finding a valid acceptance, it follows that the heirs of Edward J. Scofield had no interest which they could convey by their quitclaim deeds, and plaintiff's claim to title must fail.

You must be