Adams v. Adams

• Decision Date: 01 March 1912
• Citation: 97 N.E. 982,211 Mass. 198
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. ADAMS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

211 Mass. 198

97 N.E. 982

ADAMS et al. v. ADAMS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 1, 1912

COUNSEL

Walter N. Buffum, for appellants.

Boutwell & Hastings and E. P. Miller, for appellees.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is a petition for the appointment of trustees and the distribution among them of a trust estate in accordance with the provisions of St. 1905, c. 326. The salient features of that act are that after fourteen years from the date of disappearance, absconding or absence from the state of a beneficiary of a trust created by will, wherein a trustee has been appointed by a probate court of this commonwealth, any person who would be interested in such trust, if the absentee was dead, may petition to the probate court for a transfer of the trust fund and its accumulations 'to the persons as trustees who would be entitled to such trust estate if such absentee had died within this commonwealth on the day fourteen years after the date of his disappearance and in the proportion to which each would be entitled.'

Elaborate and minute provisions are made for a full description of the estate and of all persons alleged to have an interest in it and for full service of the notice thereupon (which shall contain the substance of the petition) personally upon all parties resident in the commonwealth, and by publication in one or more newspapers within the commonwealth within 30 days after the order, and in the place of the last known residence or abiding place of the absentee if within the United States within 60 days after the order, the return day of which shall be not less than 6 months after the order. All the world are made parties and shall be concluded by the decree. A guardian ad litem is to be appointed for the absentee and for all others under disability or absent or unascertained or not in being who may have an interest in the fund. The new trustees each are required to give a bond, with or without sureties as the court may direct, conditioned to repay to the absentee if alive, or the persons claiming under him, the fund received by such trustee less his disbursement and compensation, but all actions in any form in behalf of the absentee to recover the fund are barred after 6 years from filing the bond. The original trustee is barred of all further liability upon payment to the new trustees thus appointed. In substance, the statute provides that, where a trust created by will is held by a trustee appointed by our courts, and the beneficiary has been absent and unheard of for fourteen years, the fund may be distributed among his heirs at law as if he had deceased at the end of the 14 years from disappearance, upon their giving bond therefor.

The absentee did not appear in the case at bar. The guardian ad litem appealed from the decree of the probate court, but the only argument has been presented by the original trustee. The interests of these persons appear to permit them to raise objections to the decree. Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524-534, 30 S.Ct. 594, 54 L.Ed. 868.

The constitutionality of the statute is attacked on the ground that it deprives the absentee of his property without due process of law in contravention of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution and does not afford him the protection in his property which is guaranteed by our own Constitution. Treating both these contentions in their broader aspects, they are concluded in favor of the petitioner by Nelson v. Blinn, 197 Mass. 279, 83 N.E. 889, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 651, 125 Am. St. Rep. 364, 14 Ann. Cas. 147, s. c., 222 U.S. 1, 32 S.Ct. 1, 56 L.Ed. 65; Atty. Gen. v. Provident Inst. for Savings, 201 Mass. 23, 86 L.Ed. 912, s. c., 221 U.S. 660, 31 S.Ct. 661, 55 L.Ed. 899, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1129; Cunnius v. Reading School Dist., 198 U.S. 458, 25 S.Ct. 721, 49 L.Ed. 1125, 3 Ann. Cas. 1121, s. c., 206 Pa. 469, 56 A. 16, 98 Am. St. Rep. 790.

The essence of these decisions is that property abandoned by its owner may be taken into custody of law and distribution of it declared among those who would be the heirs of absentee if he were deceased, all under reasonable limitations as to length of absence, precedent notice and safeguards for the security of the property.

These cases have decided that 14 years of absence and inattention to property is a sufficient time to warrant a finding of abandonment. That the property made the subject of this statute is not a physical derelict, but in the hands of a trustee is of no consequence. Such property may be none the less abandoned by the beneficial owner. It can stand on no better footing in this regard than deposits in savings banks, which were under discussion in Atty. Gen. v. Provident Inst. for Sav., 201 Mass. 23, 86 N.E. 912. In this regard, statutes like the one here in question are statute of limitations, and do not offend against constitutional guarantees. The limitation against the heirs at law, as new trustees, is 6 years so that the absentee is not finally barred of the right to claim his property until the expiration of 20 years. See Mulvey v. Boston, 197 Mass. 178, 83 N.E. 402, 14 Ann. Cas. 349.

It cannot be urged successfully in the light of these adjudications that the present statute is an attempt to extinguish arbitrarily the property rights of the absentee. The requirement as to notice in section 3 of the act is...