LAW.coLAW.co

Henry J. Burn, administrator, vs. Mary L. McAllister & others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1947-10-28
321 Mass. 660

Summary

Holding. The decrees sustaining demurrers were reversed because probate courts possess statutory authority to interpret trust instruments; however, the decree dismissing the petition was affirmed because declaratory relief was properly withheld as a matter of judicial discretion, given that the events triggering the trust termination would not occur in the foreseeable future.

An administrator of an estate sought a court interpretation of a trust instrument established by Louis F. Buff, specifically challenging provisions that would transfer trust property to a newly formed corporation upon the deaths of the widow and all children. The administrator argued these provisions violated the rule against perpetuities. The trial judge dismissed the petition by sustaining demurrers, finding the petitioner lacked standing and had failed to state a claim for relief under the applicable statute.

On appeal, the court recognized that probate courts possess statutory authority to interpret written trust instruments in equity proceedings. The court therefore found error in the trial judge's decision to sustain the demurrers, as the statute expressly granted interpretive power to the probate court. However, the court upheld the dismissal itself, reasoning that the practical effect of granting the requested declaratory relief at that time would be premature, since the circumstances giving rise to the trust's termination and property transfer would not occur until the future deaths of specified individuals, at which time the trustees might be entirely different persons.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether a probate court possesses statutory authority to interpret trust instruments in equity proceedings
  • Whether a petitioner has standing and states a valid claim to challenge trust provisions as violating the rule against perpetuities
  • Whether a probate court may decline to issue a declaratory interpretation of a trust instrument as a matter of discretion when the circumstances triggering the disputed provisions are speculative and remote

Procedural posture

The trial judge sustained demurrers filed by respondents and dismissed the petition for interpretation of a trust instrument; the petitioner appealed from both the sustaining of the demurrers and the dismissal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Lummus, J.

This is a petition, filed on January 13, 1944, by the administrator with the will annexed de bonis non of the estate of Louis F. Buff, for an interpretation of the same trust instrument that is described in the opinion in the pre ceding case. The respondents Henry A. Buff, Mary L. McAllister and Buff & Buff Manufacturing Company demurred. The judge sustained their demurrers, stating: “The court declines to make a determination of right and states that (1) the petitioner avers no facts entitling him to bring said petition as an interested party (2) no case entitling this petitioner to relief under G. L. c. 215, § 6, is shown by the facts averred.” Consequently the judge entered a decree dismissing the petition, and the petitioner appealed from the sustaining of the demurrers and the dismissal of the petition. The decision was made upon the pleadings, and consequently no evidence is reported.

The petition is brought under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 6B, inserted by St. 1935, c. 247, § 1, which read as follows: “A suit in equity in a probate court shall not be open to objection on the ground that a mere judgment, order or decree interpreting a written instrument or written instruments is sought thereby, and in such a suit said court may make binding determinations of right interpreting the same, whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed or not. If, in its discretion, a probate court in such case declines to make such a determination, it shall state its reasons therefor in writing.” That section was repealed by St. 1945, c. 582, § 3, but by the repealing statute was left in force as to proceedings which, like the present petition, were commenced prior to November 1, 1945.

The trust instrument provided that the trust should continue until the widow and all the children of Louis F. Buff should die, and then should terminate, and that all the trust property should then be transferred to a corporation to be organized by the trustees, the stock of which was to be equally divided among the trustees then in office. The petitioner contends that those provisions are void, and that instead the trust property will pass to the personal representatives of Louis F. Buff, for one reason because of the rule against perpetuities.

In our opinion the interpretation of the trust instrument is a power expressly granted to the Probate Court by the statute. For that reason there was error in the decrees sus taining the demurrers. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Leone, 298 Mass. 96. In declining to make a determination of right, the judge did not state his reasons as required by the statute. But the appeal brings before us questions of discretion as well as other questions, and we may decide them even though the Probate Court did not. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Leone, 298 Mass. 96, 100. National Shawmut Bank v. Morey, 320 Mass. 492, 498. Compare Hogan v. Hogan, 320 Mass. 658, 663. The questions as to which determinations are sought will not arise until the deaths of the widow and children of Louis F. Buff. At that time the trustees, who on the face of the trust instrument will take beneficially, may be wholly different persons from the present trustees. We think that the judge, though he did not put his action on the ground of discretion, reached the right result in declining to make at this time a declaratory decree. National Shawmut Bank v. Morey, 320 Mass. 492.

Costs and expenses payable out of the trust estate may be awarded to either party or both parties or their counsel in the discretion of the Probate Court.

Decrees sustaining demurrers reversed.

Decree dismissing petition affirmed.