Commerce Trust Co. v. Bayles

• Citation: 273 S.W. 759
• Decision Date: 15 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 15396.,15396.
• Parties: COMMERCE TRUST CO. v. BAYLES et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

273 S.W. 759

COMMERCE TRUST CO. v. BAYLES et al.

No. 15396.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 15, 1925.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Samuel A. Dew, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by the Commerce Trust Company against Ida Deborah Bayles and others, trustees under the will of James A. Bayles, and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

William D. Bush, of Kansas City, for appellant.

John A. Sea, of Independence, for respondents.

BLAND, J.

Plaintiff is the owner of an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant Claribel Bayles Cook, in the sum of $2,625.64. After having unsuccessfully attempted to collect the judgment by execution at law, it brought this suit in equity in the nature of an equitable garnishment against said defendant and the trustees under the will of James A. Bayles, deceased, to reach the assets of defendant Claribel Cook, consisting of certain income from property held by the other defendants as trustees, and apply the same in satisfaction of said judgment. There was a decree in favor of defendants, and plaintiff has appealed.

The income from the property sought to be reached is that inherited by said Claribel Bayles Cook from her father, James A. Bayles, and the determination of the controversy hinges upon the proper construction of item 5 of the will of the said Bayles. This item of the will devises the remainder of the testator's property, other than that disposed of in the other portions of the will, to his four children, each, other than defendant Cook, to have a one-fourth interest in said property absolutely; the remaining one-fourth interest being given to the said three children as trustees—

`* * * in trust for my daughter Claribel Bayles Cook, they to have and to hold the same as trustees in trust as aforesaid for the use and benefit of my said daughter Claribel Bayles Cook as herein provided. I hereby give said trustees full power to manage, handle and control said property so that it will produce an income for the support and maintenance of said Claribel Bayles Cook, during her natural life, giving and granting to said trustees full power to sell and dispose of any or all of said property, real or personal, and to reinvest the same in such security or securities, and in such other property as to them shall seem for the best interest of said estate. It being my desire and intention to place said property in them as aforesaid so that the same will produce an income for her, my said daughter, Claribel, as aforesaid; said income shall be paid * * * to the said Claribel Bayles Cook to manage and dispose of as she sees proper for her support. If, from any cause, the income from said property shall not be sufficient to support my said daughter Claribel comfortably, said trustees shall have full power to use a part of the principal of the property herein devised, for the care and support of the said Claribel Bayles Cook, and they are hereby fully authorized and directed so to do. The income arising aforesaid from the property aforesaid shall be paid only to the said Claribel Bayles Cook and her personal receipt taken therefor." (Italics ours.)

It is insisted by the defendants that the will created a spendthrift trust in favor of Claribel Bayles Cook, and therefore that the property is not subject to the payment of her debts. It is the contention of plaintiff that a spendthrift trust was not created. "In order to create a spendthrift trust certain prerequisites must be observed, to wit: First, the gift to the donee must be only of the income; he must take no estate whatever, have nothing to alienate, have no right to possession, have no beneficial interest in the land, but only a qualified right to support, and an equitable interest only in the income; second, the legal title must be vested in a trustee; third, the trust must be an active one, not a mere dry trust which may be executed under the statute of uses." Kessner v. Phillips, 189 Mo. 515, 524, 88 S. W. 66, 68 (107 Am. St. Rep. 368, 3 Ann. Cas. 1005).

In construing the will, to determine whether or not it creates a spendthrift trust, the same rule of construction must be used as in construing it for any other purpose; that is, "to arrive at the intention of the testator." All other rules of construction are merely to be used in aid of that rule. Matthews v. Van Cleve, 282 Mo. 19, 30, 221 S. W. 34. "It is not necessary that an instrument creating a spendthrift trust should contain an express declaration that the interest of the cestui que trust in the trust estate shall be beyond the reach of his creditors, providing such appears to be the clear intention of the testator or donor as gathered from all parts of the instrument construed together in the light of the circumstances. The court will look to the intention disclosed by the whole instrument, rather than to the language employed in any particular clause of it." 26 Amer. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, pp. 141, 142; Heaton v. Dickson, 153 Mo. App. 312, 133 S. W. 159. "* * * While it is usual in such trust to find a provision against alienation of the trust fund by the voluntary act of the beneficiary, or through legal process by his creditors, nevertheless, if it clearly appears to have been the intention of the testator or donor to create a spendthrift trust, the instrument will be so construed, although it contains no express declaration that the interest...