Central Trust Bank v. Stout, KCD
| Decision Date | 02 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 579 S.W.2d 825 |
| Parties | The CENTRAL TRUST BANK, Respondent, v. Lynn Berry STOUT, James M. Berry, and Mike Berry, Respondents, v. Scott Matthew STOUT, Christopher William Stout, Elizabeth Ann Berry, Janet Kathleen Berry, and the Known and Unknown Heirs of the Body of Virginia Lee Berry Barbarick, Deceased, Appellants. 29970. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard R. Nacy, Jr., Jefferson City, for appellants.
Carson, Monaco, Coil, Riley & McMillin, P. C., William C. Lane, Jefferson City, for respondents.
Before DIXON, P. J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.
Central Trust Bank sought a declaratory judgment for the purpose of identifying the "bodily heirs" of Virginia Berry Barbarick. The court determined the heirs were the three children of Virginia, and the four grandchildren of Virginia appeal.
On this appeal it is contended the court erred in not construing the testamentary trust to include the grandchildren of Virginia who were the great-grandchildren of the testatrix. Affirmed.
Susie Williams executed her will in 1948 after it had been drafted by her attorney. The will established a trust for Susie's daughter, Virginia Lee Berry, and provided for the distribution of the income from the trust until the death of Virginia. At that time the will provided:
Upon the death of my daughter, Virginia Lee Berry, my said trustee is authorized and directed to pay such sums as in his discretion are advisable concerning burial of the body of Virginia Lee Berry, and shall distribute any balance of my estate in equal shares to the bodily heirs of my daughter, Virginia Lee Berry, absolute and in fee simple to do with as they see fit.
Susie died in 1949 survived by her only child, Virginia Lee Berry. At that time Virginia had one child, James. Subsequently, Virginia had two more children, Lynn Berry Stout and Michael A. Berry. Virginia was later divorced and married Barbarick. Virginia died in 1977, at which time her son James had two children, Elizabeth and Janet, and her daughter Lynn had two children, Christopher and Scott. Michael was unmarried and had no children.
After the death of Virginia, Central Trust Bank, trustee of the testamentary trust, filed this action for a declaratory judgment to determine the persons to whom it should make distribution as constituting the "bodily heirs" of Virginia and in what proportion such distribution should be made. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for the four minor grandchildren of Virginia who filed an answer on their behalf contending they were included within the "bodily heirs" of Virginia and entitled to equal shares along with the three children of Virginia. The three children also filed an answer alleging they were the only "bodily heirs" of Virginia and were entitled to the distribution of the estate in equal shares but the four grandchildren of Virginia were not entitled to take anything.
The court held only the three children of Virginia constituted her "bodily heirs" and were thus entitled to an equal share in the distribution of the trust estate and the grandchildren of Virginia were not entitled to any interest. The guardian ad litem for the grandchildren of Virginia perfected this appeal.
It is contended the court did not give effect to the intent of Susie that would indicate the great-grandchildren of Susie and grandchildren of Virginia should be included within the class of "bodily heirs" of Virginia. The term "bodily heirs" is a technical one. It is well settled that, " '(w)ords with a well-known technical meaning should be construed according to their technical meaning unless a contrary meaning clearly appears from the context of the will.' " St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Kaltenbach, 353 Mo. 1114, 186 S.W.2d 578, 582(2, 3) (1945).
While the phrase "bodily heirs" is found in the trust provision of Susie's will, "(t)he rules of construction applied to wills generally are also used in the case of testamentary trusts." First National Bank of Kansas City v. Hyde,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Barnes, 12505
...is a technical term which is limited to the issue of the person named, as distinguished from heirs generally. Central Trust Bank v. Stout, 579 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Mo.App.1979); Godsy v. Godsy, 531 S.W.2d 547, 550 n.4 (Mo.App.1975); 4 Page on Wills § 34.10 (Bowe-Parker Rev.1961). Thus, it is cl......
-
Nelson, In re
...same rules for construing both trusts and wills." Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Mo.App.1995); see also Central Trust Bank v. Stout, 579 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Mo.App.1979). "The paramount rule of construction in determining the meaning of a trust provision is that the grantor's intent is ......
-
Buder v. U.S.
...343, 346 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). Because Missouri courts use the same rules for construing both trusts and wills, Central Trust Bank v. Stout, 579 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Mo.Ct.App.1979), we construe Buder's Paragraph D Trust by examining the will in its entirety. Buder organized his will into several s......
-
Lehr v. Collier
...same rules for construing both trusts and wills. Buder v. United States, 7 F.3d 1382, 1385 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Central Trust Bank v. Stout, 579 S.W.2d 825, 827 (Mo.App.1979)). When, as here, the trust and will form parts of the same plan, the documents must be construed together. Commerc......