Bankers Trust Co. v. Variell
Decision Date | 25 June 1956 |
Citation | 143 Conn. 524,123 A.2d 874 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, Executor and Trustee (ESTATE of Warren L. GREEN) v. Katharine S. VARIELL, Administratrix c. t. a. (ESTATE of Frits V. HOLM), et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Walter G. Farr, Jr., New Haven, with whom was Morris Tyler, New Haven, for appellants (defendants Calder et al.).
Frank L. Wilder, Bridgeport, for appellee (named defendant).
Morgan P. Ames, Stamford, appeared for plaintiff.
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
The plaintiff as executor and trustee under the will of Warren L. Green brought this action to determine the validity and effect of the exercise of a power of appointment given by the testator to his daughter. The court rendered judgment finding the exercise of the power valid as to the named defendant's decedent, and the other defendants have appealed.
The testator, Green, died on August 12, 1919. He left a will, dated December 6, 1918, which was duly admitted to probate in the Probate Court for the district of Greenwich. He was survived by his widow, Jeanne, and his daughter, Marguerite. The daughter married Frits V. Holm in October, 1919. She died on November 16, 1928, without issue, leaving her husband, Holm, surviving. Holm died on March 9, 1930. Green's widow died on October 1, 1954. The named defendant is the administratrix c. t. a. of Holm's estate. The other defendants are the persons who constituted the board of directors of the American Bank Note Company at the time Green's widow died.
In the sixth article of his will, Green created a trust, the net income of which was payable to his widow, if living, otherwise to his daughter. If his widow remarried, and she did, one-half of the income was payable to his daughter thereafter. The seventh article provided that if neither widow nor daughter survived the testator, or upon the death of the one who did survive, the corpus of the trust was to be given to the daughter's issue then living equally, per stirpes and not per capita. In the eighth article, the testator provided that if both his wife and his daughter predeceased him, or if upon the death of the survivor of them there should be no living issue of his daughter, certain specified legacies should be paid to certain named beneficiaries. The remainder of this eighth article, which directly concerns the question involved in this appeal, reads as follows:
Upon her death in 1928, the daughter left a will executed on November 20, 1919, in which she purported to exercise the power of appointment given to her in article eighth of her father's will, as follows: 'Under the power of appointment given me in the Eighth Subdivision of the Last Will and Testament of my father, the late Warren Luqueer Green, now deceased, I designate and appoint my husband, Frits Vilhelm Holm, as the beneficiary of the entire remainder of the Trust Fund set forth in the Sixth Subdivision of said Last Will and Testament of Warren Luqueer Green, deceased, subject to the payment of the legacies therein referred to, as [sic] such of those legacies as may not have lapsed.' The defendant administratrix claims that, by virtue of the exercise of the power of appointment, Holm's estate is entitled to the residue of the trust. The other defendants claim that the death of Holm in 1930, subsequent to the death of his wife, the daughter of the testator, in 1928, but before the death of the testator's widow in 1954, defeated the exercise of the power of appointment. They claim to be entitled to the residue of the trust unconditionally. To resolve these claims, we seek to find and effectuate the intent expressed by the testator. Bankers Trust Co. v. Pearson, 140 Conn. 332, 345, 99 A.2d 224; Chase National Bank v. Guthrie, 139 Conn. 178, 182, 90 A.2d 643. To that end, we look first to the will itself. Hoenig v. Lubetkin, 137 Conn. 516, 519, 79 A.2d 278. While the will states what is to be done on the happening of certain contingencies, it contains no specific direction to provide for the contingency which occurred, namely, the death of the daughter's appointee, her husband Holm, after her death in 1928 but before...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Huntington
...the estate of the donee, and therefore his nonexercise of the power cannot result in any intestacy in his estate. Bankers Trust Co. v. Variell, 143 Conn. 524, 528, 123 A.2d 874. This is one of the reasons for the common-law rule long in effect in Connecticut, as opposed to the contrary rule......
-
Schwerin v. Bessemer Trust Co.
... ... " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Gaynor v. Payne , 261 Conn. 585, 592, 804 A.2d 170 ... (2002); see also Bankers Trust Co. v. Variell , 143 ... Conn. 524, 529, 123 A.2d 874 (1956) (explain that this rule ... applies to class gifts as well) ... ...
-
DiSesa v. Hickey
...and therefore his nonexercise of the power cannot result in any intestacy in his estate. Bankers Trust Co. v. Variell, 14o Conn. 524, 528, 123 A.2d 874. This is one of the reasons for the common-law rule long in effect in Connecticut, as opposed to the contrary rule which Massachusetts has ......
-
Dolak v. Sullivan
...of appointment [who] derives his title from the donor [here the company] of the power,' under the rule of Bankers Trust Co. v. Variell, 143 Conn. 524, 528, 123 A.2d 874, 876. The Variell case dealt with a power of appointment gratuitously conferred under a will. It has nothing to do with a ......