Bridgeport-City Trust Co. v. Beach

• Decision Date: 27 July 1934
• Citation: 119 Conn. 131,174 A. 308
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRIDGEPORT-CITY TRUST CO. v. BEACH et al.

174 A. 308

119 Conn. 131

BRIDGEPORT-CITY TRUST CO. v. BEACH et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1934

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F Ells, Judge.

Action by the Bridgeport-City Trust Company, executor and trustee of the estate of Margaret A. Beach, against Helen B. Beach and others for the construction of a will. Case was reserved for the advice of the Supreme Court upon submitted questions.

Questions answered.

MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, J., dissenting in part.

Frederick C. Beach, of Stratford, for Alfred B. Beach et al.

John P. Flanagan and David Goldstein, both of Bridgeport, for Helen B. Beach.

Arthur M. Comley and William Reeves, both of Bridgeport, for Stanley Y. Beach.

Joseph H. Sand, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and John M. Comley, of Stamford pro se.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

HINMAN Judge.

The stipulated facts include the following: On September 23, 1921, Margaret A. Beach of Stratford executed a will by which she gave to each of her grandchildren surviving her $1,000, to Helen B. Beach, wife of her son Stanley Y. Beach, $5,000, and to Ethel Beach Wales, her daughter, the homestead property; then, in paragraph fifth, she directed that all the rest, residue, and remainder of her property be divided into equal parts, one of which she gave (a) to her daughter, Ethel Beach Wales, absolutely; (b) " The other one of said parts I give, devise, and bequeath to The Bridgeport Trust Company of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in trust nevertheless, for the following uses and purposes, to wit: To invest and reinvest, with full power of purchase and sale for such investment and reinvestment and to pay over the net income therefrom to my son, Stanley Y. Beach, in weekly installments as nearly as possible. I further authorize the said The Bridgeport Trust Company to withhold from the said Stanley Y. Beach any or all of the said income, should it not be necessary for his comfortable support and maintenance or should it appear that the said net income is not being used for his comfortable support and maintenance. I further authorize the said The Bridgeport Trust Company, if it shall be necessary for the comfortable support and maintenance of my said son, to use such portion of the principal as may be necessary. My desire is that my said son shall at all times have a sufficient amount of money from my estate to insure his comfortable support and maintenance, but that the money shall be held for that purpose and not for any other. At the death of my said son, I direct that the principal sum that may remain at that time be paid to the children of the said Stanley Y. Beach and Helen B. Beach, his wife, and to the said Helen B. Beach share and share alike. If any of the said children shall have died, leaving children, the share of such deceased children shall go to his children. If any of such children of the said Stanley Y. Beach and Helen B. Beach shall have died without leaving children, the share of such child shall be given to the survivor or survivors of the children of the said Stanley Y. Beach and Helen B. Beach, his wife." At the time the will was executed Stanley Y. Beach was married to Helen B. Beach, but she divorced him on June 1, 1928. Frederick, Alfred, and Margaret Beach are their children. On June 4, 1928, Stanley Beach married a second wife, with whom he is now living and whom by law he is obliged to support. On August 8, 1928, Margaret A. Beach executed a codicil to her will, declaring an intention that the $1,000 given in the will to each of her grandchildren " shall be given to each of my grandchildren who are, or may be, the issue of the marriages of James A. Wales and Ethel B. Wales on the one part, and of Stanley Y. Beach and Helen B. Beach on the other part." On September 3, 1925, upon the petition of the testatrix, the First National Bank & Trust Company of Bridgeport was appointed conservator of the estate of Stanley Y. Beach, qualified as such, and has not been discharged. See Beach v. First National Bank, 107 Conn. 1, 138 A. 905.

Margaret A. Beach died on December 18, 1932, the will and codicil were admitted to probate, and the plaintiff Trust Company as executor has since administered the affairs of the estate and has accumulated certain funds as income under the trust set forth in section (b) of Paragraph Fifth of the will, which, upon the settlement of the estate, will be turned over to it as the trustee under the will. No payments have been made under this trust to Stanley Y. Beach or to any party, having been withheld pending interpretation of the provisions of the will governing the trust. Stanley Y. Beach is now domiciled and is residing in New York City, and was and had been on the date of the execution of the codicil. He is not employed, and receives nothing by way of salary or wages, but is a beneficiary under two other trusts, one under the will of an aunt, the other an inter vivos trust established for him by his father, and is receiving income from the latter trust. On May 12, 1933, Stanley Y. Beach executed in New York an assignment to Joseph H. Sand in the sum of $7,500, for legal services rendered in New York, in which he authorized the plaintiff to pay over the income upon the trust here in question until that sum should be fully paid.

The questions reserved will be stated in connection with the discussion of each, respectively.

(1) " Whether payments under this trust shall be made to the First National Bank and Trust Company as conservator, or to Stanley Y. Beach?" The direction in the will that the income be paid over to the beneficiary, Stanley Y. Beach, as modified by the authorization to the trustee to withhold so much of it as is not necessary for the support and maintenance of the beneficiary, is virtually the equivalent of a direction to pay over only such portion of the income as the trustee deems to be necessary for the declared purpose, and is somewhat analogous to the situation in Hewitt v. Hicock, 96 Conn. 176, page 181, 113 A. 172, in which it was held that the trustees, instead of the guardian of an infant, should expend such sums as they deemed necessary for her support and education. There is also force in the suggestion that, as discretion as to the amount of payments is reposed in the trustee, payment through a conservator would be a useless formality. Be that as it may, as Stanley Beach is now, and long has been, domiciled in New York, he is sui juris, and, " if incapable of managing his own affairs the only mode of securing a legal supervision for him was by proceeding under the laws of that state in the same manner as in the case of any other of its inhabitants." Gates v. Bingham, 49 Conn. 275, 278. Such right as he has to receive the income has its situs at the place of his residence. Beach v. First National Bank, supra, page 4 of 107 Conn. , 138 A. 905. At least so long as he is free of conservatorship at his domicile, payments may be made directly to him.

(2) " Whether the entire income from the trust for Stanley Y. Beach shall be paid, or whether the trustee shall use its discretion as to the amounts it shall pay?" If it stood alone, the testamentary direction to " pay over the net income *** in weekly installments as nearly equal as possible" would require payment of the entire income. Clearly, however, there must be considered with it the succeeding provisions authorizing the trustee " to withhold from the said Stanley Y. Beach any or all the said income, should it not be necessary for his comfortable support and maintenance or should it appear that the said net income is not being used for his comfortable support and maintenance," and, " if it shall be necessary for the comfortable support and maintenance of my said son, to use such portion of the principal as may be necessary" ; also the expressed desire " that my said son shall at all times have a sufficient amount of money from my [plaintiff Trust Company estate to insure his comfortable support and maintenance, but that the money shall be held for that purpose and not for any other." Taken together, these provisions, as already stated, amount to a direction that the trustee shall pay to him so much, and only so much, of the income as it finds to be necessary for the specified purposes, and shall not so pay over the entire income unless it finds all of it to be necessary for those purposes. Cromwell v. Converse, 108 Conn. 412, 415, 143 A. 416, 61 A.L.R. 663. The reason and justification for these restrictions upon the allowances to be made to the beneficiary are sufficiently indicated by unavoidable inferences from the ultimate appointment of a conservator for him, at the behest of the testatrix herself, and the chronic speculative and improvident tendencies and state of financial embarrassment disclosed in that proceeding. Beach v. First National Bank, supra, page 7 of 107 Conn. , 138 A. 905. The intention, plainly, is to insure him comfortable and suitable support to the extent of the entire income, if necessary, and, if that should prove insufficient, by withdrawals from principal, but at the same time to guard against use of any of the fund or its income for any other than the purposes specifically designated. It follows that the trustee should determine, by a continuing exercise of its discretion, the amount required for those purposes only, and pay the amount so determined, whether it be the entire income or less, as the case may be.

(3) " Whether the trustee shall make payments under this trust regardless of income or money that Stanley Y. Beach receives from money other than this trust?" The paramount intent of the testatrix in making testamentary provision for her son, as well as in the...