Brookings v. Mississippi Val. Trust Co.

• Citation: 196 S.W.2d 775,355 Mo. 513
• Decision Date: 09 September 1946
• Docket Number: 39571
• Parties: Isabel Valle Brookings, Appellant, v. Mississippi Valley Trust Company, Successor Trustee Under the Will of Jemima Lindell, Deceased, Robin Arthur Lang, John Alexander Forbes-Leith, Andrew George Forbes-Leith, Anne Rosedew Forbes-Leith, and Mary Elizabeth Forbes-Leith, Minors, Charles Douglas Conyers Lang, Robert Ian Algernon Forbes-Leith, and Lorna Marsalie Prior
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

196 S.W.2d 775

355 Mo. 513

Isabel Valle Brookings, Appellant, v. Mississippi Valley Trust Company, Successor Trustee Under the Will of Jemima Lindell, Deceased, Robin Arthur Lang, John Alexander Forbes-Leith, Andrew George Forbes-Leith, Anne Rosedew Forbes-Leith, and Mary Elizabeth Forbes-Leith, Minors, Charles Douglas Conyers Lang, Robert Ian Algernon Forbes-Leith, and Lorna Marsalie Prior

No. 39571

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 9, 1946

Rehearing Denied October 14, 1946.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William L Mason, Judge.

Affirmed.

Luther Ely Smith, Harold C. Hanke and Victor B. Harris for appellant.

(1) Since the real estate held in trust was productive at the time the will was executed and only became non-productive long after the death of testatrix, taxes and other charges against said real estate should be charged against the corpus of the trust estate. Haas v. McGinn, 64 R.I. 133, 11 A.2d 284; Harvard Trust Co. v. Duke, 304 Mass. 414 24 N.E.2d 144; In re Nirdlinger, 331 Pa. 135, 200 A 656, 116 A.L.R. 1350; Stone v. Littlefield, 151 Mass. 485, 24 N.E. 592; Hite's Devisees v. Hite's Executors, 93 Ky. 257, 20 S.W. 778, 19 L.R.A. 173, 40 Am. St. Rep. 189; In re Moore's Will, 185 Minn. 342, 241 N.W. 63; Sheffield v. Cooke, 39 R.I. 219, 98 A. 161; Poole v. Union Trust Co., 191 Mich. 162, 157 N.W. 430, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 622; In re Bothwell's Estate, 151 P.2d 298; Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Wade, 24 N.E.2d 764; McKechnie v. Springfield, 41 N.E.2d 557; Union Trust Co. v. Dexter, 42 N.E.2d 797; 2 Scott on Trusts (1939), sec. 233.4, p. 1273; Restatement, Law of Trusts, sec. 233 (m); Loring, "A Trustee's Handbook" (5 Ed. Shattuck Revision 1940), p. 190; Loring, "A Trustee's Handbook," p. 139; 2 Perry on Trusts 949; 26 R.C.L., sec. 247, p. 1383; 20 Boston U.L.R. 447; 38 Mich. L.R. 1366. (2) Under the New York rule of equitable conversion, as well as on general equitable principles, a duty to sell the Twelfth and Washington property arose in 1936 and charges thereafter accruing for taxes and the like should be charged against the corpus and not against income. While there is ample authority for granting the relief prayed, without resorting to the doctrine of "equitable conversion," nevertheless, even on that theory, appellant should have prevailed below. In re Rowland's Estate, 273 N.Y. 100, 6 N.E.2d 393; In re Des Forges' Will, 9 N.W.2d 609; 40 Yale L.J. 275; Lawrence v. Littlefield, 215 N.Y. 561, 109 N.E. 611; Spencer v. Spencer, 219 N.Y. 459, 114 N.E. 849; Firniss v. Cruikshank, 230 N.Y. 495, 130 N.E. 625; Matter of Jackson's Will, 258 N.Y. 281, 179 N.E. 496; Matter of Satterwhite's Will, 262 N.Y. 339, 186 N.E. 857; Matter of Chapal's Will, 269 N.Y. 464, 199 N.E. 762; 2 Scott on Trusts (1939), secs. 233.4, 241.1, p. 1273; Loring, "A Trustee's Handbook" (5 Ed., Shattuck Revision 1940), p. 190; 20 Boston U. Law Rev., l.c. 455; 38 Mich. Law Rev. 1366. (3) The trial court erred in excluding the pleadings and decree in Lang v. Mississippi Valley Trust Company, No. 52718-C. Said evidence shows that the respondent trustee could obtain authority to sell non-productive real estate owned by it as trustee when it became a burden to the trust estate. Harvard Trust Co. v. Duke, 304 Mass. 414, 24 N.E.2d 144; 40 Yale L.J. 275, l.c. 281; Loring, "A Trustee's Handbook" (5 Ed., Shattuck Revision, 1940), p. 151. (4) Testatrix's dominant intention was to provide life income for a favored great granddaughter (appellant) and hence the income of this named great granddaughter should not be charged with expenses that benefit only remaindermen who were unknown to testatrix. Snow v. Ferril, 320 Mo. 543, 8 S.W.2d 1008; Wooley v. Hays, 285 Mo. 566, 226 S.W. 842; Kerens v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 283 Mo. 601, 223 S.W. 645; Patterson v. Old Dominion Trust Co., 149 Va. 597, 140 S.E. 810. (5) It was error for the trial court to refuse to receive the pleadings in the case of Sylvia, Inc., v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., No. 37,242-C. The judgment and attorneys' fees amounting to $ 1,138.50, plus one-half the costs, being an extraordinary expense, should have been charged against principal and not income. 4 Bogert on Trusts (1935), sec. 802, p. 2319; 2 Scott on Trusts (1939), sec. 233.3, pp. 1263, 1267; Estate of Abraham Gartenlaub, 185 Cal. 648, 198 P. 209, 16 A.L.R. 520; Cogswell v. Weston, 228 Mass. 219, 117 N.E. 37; Citizens & Southern Natl. Bank v. Fleming, 181 Ga. 116, 181 S.E. 768. (6) Attorneys' fees in this suit allowed appellants' counsel should be charged against principal and not against income. Estate of Abraham Gartenlaub, 185 Cal. 648, 198 P. 209, 16 A.L.R. 520; Cogswell v. Weston, 228 Mass. 219, 117 N.E. 37; Citizens & Southern Bank v. Fleming, 181 Ga. 116, 181 S.E. 768; In re Kruce's Estate, 10 Cal.App. (2d) 426, 51 P.2d 1174; In re Bernheimer's Estate, 352 Mo. 91, 176 S.W.2d 15; Garrison v. Garrison, 188 S.W.2d 644; City of St. Louis v. McAllister, 302 Mo. 152, 257 S.W. 425; Trautz v. Lemp, 334 Mo. 1085, 72 S.W.2d 104; Kingston v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 348 Mo. 448, 154 S.W.2d 39; Creed v. McAleer, 275 Mass. 353, 175 N.E. 761, 80 A.L.R. 1117; Gray v. Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis, 213 Ind. 675, 12 N.E.2d 931; Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. Ott, 248 A.D. 406, 289 N.Y.S. 228.

Charles P. Williams for respondents.

(1) This purports to be a suit for the construction of a will. We believe the will is so plain that there is no justification for such a suit. Love v. Engelke, 368 Ill. 342, 14 N.E.2d 228; Hast v. Wilder's Trustee, 140 Ky 767, 131 S.W. 793; Melvin v. Hoffman, 290 Mo. 464, 235 S.W. 107; Rossi v. Davis, 345 Mo. 362, 133 S.W.2d 363; In re Nichols Trust Fund, 228 Mo.App. 489, 68 S.W.2d 917. (2) The general rule as to the charging of expenses of executing a trust created by will. Rothschild v. Weinthel, 191 Ind. 85, 131 N.E. 917; Jordan v. Jordan, 192 Mass. 337, 78 N.E. 459; Hayes v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 317 Mo. 1028, 298 S.W. 91. (3) The trustee has only an estate pur autre vie in an undivided one-half of the real estate. That is all it could sell. Who would buy it? Stephens v. Moore, 298 Mo. 215, 249 S.W. 601; Wyatt v. Stillman Institute, 303 Mo. 94, 260 S.W. 73; Perry on Trusts (7 Ed.), sec. 312; Doe d. Player v. Nicholls, 1 Barn. & Cr. 335; Doe d. White v. Simpson, 5 East. 162; Ward v. Burbury, 18 Beavan 190; Doe d. Considine, 6 Wall. 458; Young v. Bradley, 101 U.S. 782; Linn v. Campbell, 289 Ill. 547, 124 N.E. 622; Harding v. St. Louis Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. 468. (4) The mere personal power vested in a particular trustee to make a long-time lease does not enlarge the estate of the trustee; and the power was confined to the first Trustee and denied to the others. Russell v. Russell, 109 Conn. 187, 145 A. 648. (5) The limitations subsequent to the life estate are plainly remainders. 21 C.J., p. 995; 69 C.J., p. 585; Purfroy v. Rogers, 2 Williams Saunders 388; Manderson v. Lukens, 23 Pa. St. 31; Doe d. Mussell v. Morgan, 3 Term. Rep. 763; Nightingale v. Burrell, 15 Pick. l.c. 110. (6) The Mississippi Valley Trust Company is denied the power to sell. (7) The power and duty of trustees to sell unproductive property has made a favorite playground for law teachers and writers. They have succeeded, to some extent, in confusing plain rules. In re Nirdlinger, 331 Pa. 135, 200 A. l.c. 59. (8) My own notion is that any such doctrine is founded upon a fictional conversion of the particular property, which it is the duty of the trustee to sell. Howe v. Earl of Dartmouth, 7 Vesey 137; McDonald v. Irvine, 47 L.J. (Chy.) 494, 8 Ch. D. 101; In re Fawcett, 109 L.J. (Chy.) 124, (1940) Ch. 402; In re Trollope's Will, 96 L.J. (Chy.) 340, (1927) 1 Chy. 596; In re Pitcairn, 65 L.J. (Chy.) 120, (1896) 2 Chy. 199; In re Woodhouse, 110 L.J. (Chy.) 214, (1941) Chy. 332. (9) Any such imputed duty to convert ceases in the face of a contrary direction. Gray v. Siggers, 49 L.J. (Chy.) 819, 15 Ch. D. 74; In re Leonard, 43 Law Times 664; In re Nicholson, 78 L.J. (Chy.) 516 (1909), 2 Chy. 111; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Shaw, 261 Mass. 361, 158 N.E. 530; In re James, 146 N.Y. 78, 40 N.E. 876; Dexter v. Dexter, 274 Mass. 273, 174 N.E. 493; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Bradley, 41 R.I. 174, 103 A. 486. (10) Restatement of Law of Trusts, 223 (M), commented on, and reference especially to 240 (E); Scott on Trusts, sec. 223-4, commented on. (11) General rules as to the charges against life tenant. In re Hurry, 168 N.Y.S. 1032; In re Morton's Estate, 74 N.J.Eq. 797, 70 A. 680; Martin v. Kimball, 86 N.J.Eq. 10, 96 A. 565; Bartlett v. Pickering, 113 Me. 96, 92 A. 1009; Taheny's Estate, 12 Pa. Dist. & Co. Rep. 243; Richardson v. McCloskey, 261 S.W. 801, 276 S.W. 680; Creed v. Connelly, 272 Mass. 241, 172 N.E. 106; Jordan v. Jordan, 192 Mass. 337, 78 N.E. 459. (12) The New York rule. In re Satterwhite's Will, 262 N.Y. 339, 186 N.E. l.c. 857; In re Rowland's Estate, 273 N.Y. 100, 6 N.E.2d 393. (13) The case of Harvard Trust Co. v. Duke, 304 Mass. 414, 24 N.E.2d 144, discussed and distinguished. Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55, 62 N.E. 956; Stone v. Littlefield, 151 Mass. 485, 24 N.E. 592; Ogden v. Allen, 225 Mass. 595, 114 N.E. 862; In re Nirdlinger's Estate, 331 Pa. 135, 200 A. 656; Springfield Safe Deposit Co. v. Wade, 24 N.E.2d 764; Scott on Trusts, secs. 234-4, 241-2; Bogert, Trust, sec. 804, pp. 2332-3; Hast v. Wilders Trustee, 140 Ky. 767, 131 S.W. 793. (14) The practice of equity as to deviations from will. Seigle v. First Natl. Co., 338 Mo. 417, 90 S.W.2d 776; Re New's Settlement (1901), 2 Ch. Div. 955, 70 L.J. (Chy.) 710; In re Tollemache, 72 L.J. Chy., 225; In re Tollemache (1903), 1 Ch. 955; In re Hazeldine's Trusts, L.J. Chy. 97 (1908), 1 Ch. Div. 34; 33 Halsbury's Laws of England (2 Ed.), Trusts and Trustees, sec. 520; Johns v. Johns, 172...