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

appealprobatetrustappellant
probatetrustappellant

Related Cases

Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific, 29 Cal.2d 34, 172 P.2d 867
View Case »
Fitchie v. Brown, 211 U.S. 321, 29 S.Ct. 106, 53 L.Ed. 202
View Case »
Tunstall v. Wells, 144 Cal.App.4th 554, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,182
View Case »
In re Estate of Lung, 692 A.2d 1349
View Case »
Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219, 858 P.2d 232
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sears v. Coolidge, 329 Mass. 340, 108 N.E.2d 563

Facts

Thomas Jefferson Coolidge executed a deed of trust on February 12, 1913, which provided for the distribution of trust income and principal upon certain conditions. The settlor died on November 17, 1920, and the trust's provisions were challenged in court. The Probate Court ruled that the life interests were valid but that the gifts of principal were void, leading to an appeal by the trustees and other interested parties. The main contention was whether the remainder interests violated the rule against perpetuities.

These two petitions under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231A seek binding declarations as to the validity of the provisions relating to income and to gifts of principal by way of remainder in a deed of trust executed by Thomas Jefferson Coolidge, late of Manchester, under date of February 12, 1913. The settlor died on November 17, 1920.

Issue

The fundamental issue is whether the remainder interests violate the rule against perpetuities.

The fundamental issue is whether the remainder interests violate the rule against perpetuities.

Rule

Where a trust instrument contains two alternative conditions, of which the first might be too remote and the second, which actually occurs, is not too remote, the rule is not violated.

Where a trust instrument contains two alternative conditions, of which the first might be too remote and the second, which actually occurs, is not too remote, the rule is not violated.

Analysis

The court analyzed the trust provisions and determined that the attainment of the age of fifty by the youngest grandchild was certain to occur within the period required by the rule against perpetuities. The court also considered the settlor's reserved power of appointment, concluding that the validity of the remainders should be assessed based on the facts known at the time of the settlor's death, when it was clear that no further grandchildren had been born.

The court analyzed the trust provisions and determined that the attainment of the age of fifty by the youngest grandchild was certain to occur within the period required by the rule against perpetuities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Probate Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter decrees validating the remainder interests.

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Probate Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter decrees validating the remainder interests.

Who won?

The appellants (trustees and interested parties) prevailed because the court found that the remainder interests were valid under the rule against perpetuities.

The appellants contend that the attainment by the youngest grandchild of the age of fifty years was certain to occur within the period required by the rule.

You must be