Dreyfus v. First National Bank of Chicago, 17474.
Decision Date | 14 May 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 17474.,17474. |
Citation | 424 F.2d 1171 |
Parties | Phyllis S. DREYFUS and Diane E. Dreyfus, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, as Trustee of the Philip S. Dreyfus Trust created under the Will of Moise Dreyfus, Deceased, of August 1, 1935, and known as Trust No. 33705, The First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee of the Philip S. Dreyfus Trust dated August 5, 1935 and known as Trust No. 33703, and The First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee of the Carolyn S. Dreyfus Trust, dated December 29, 1937, and known as Trust No. 33704, and Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, a Not-for-Profit Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Samuel M. Lanoff, John A. Cook, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
George V. Bobrinskoy, Jr., Burton E. Glazov, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees; Mayer, Friedlich, Spiess, Tierney, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.
Before KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge, and CUMMINGS and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs-appellants, Phyllis S. Dreyfus and Diane E. Dreyfus, filed their Complaint in the United States District Court claiming the principal of the three trusts here involved, under the Will of their late father Philip Dreyfus who died January 19, 1961.
The defendant-appellee, The First National Bank of Chicago, was trustee under Trusts numbered 33703, 33704 and 33705. The principal has been distributed to the defendant-appellee Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center.
Trust 33703 was created by the father of the plaintiffs, Philip Dreyfus, as donor, on August 5, 1935, as a trust for the benefit of himself and his descendants. On October 25, 1955, Philip and his wife Dorris Roberts Dreyfus were divorced. Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that the proceedings were attended with bitterness between the parties. The plaintiffs were then twelve and nine years of age. On March 3, 1959, Philip Dreyfus, their father, amended Trust 33703 to provide for payment of $200 per month for the use and benefit of his daughters. These payments were made until his death on January 19, 1961.
Trust 33704 was also an irrevocable trust set up by Carolyn Dreyfus, Philip's mother, on December 29, 1937, for the benefit of Philip and his descendants.
Trust 33705 was a testamentary trust established under the Will, dated August 1, 1935, of Moise Dreyfus, father of Philip and grandfather of the plaintiffs.
Basically all three trust instruments provide that following the death of Philip the principal is to be distributed as he shall appoint by will and, in default of appointment, to his then living issue.
Philip's Will is dated November 10, 1958. The Divorce Decree and a subsequent Order were exhibits in other proceedings, portions of which were included in the Appendix to this appeal. These documents indicate that at the date of the Will the plaintiffs, then minor children of fifteen and twelve years were residing with their mother in California contrary to the provisions of the Divorce Decree which awarded custody to their father.
The pertinent portions of Philip's Will appear in the Complaint as follows:
Count I of the Complaint is based on the theory that the wording in the Fourth article of the Will:
All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate remaining after carrying out the foregoing provisions of this, my Last Will and Testament. * * * (emphasis added)
provides a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of appointment. The Complaint asserts that the bequest of $1000 to each of the plaintiffs is one of those foregoing provisions and that it cannot be carried out because, apart from the corpus of the trusts, Philip's estate is now insolvent, a fact which plaintiffs did not learn until they received a letter to that effect, dated May 27, 1968, from The First National Bank.
Thus plaintiffs argue that the monetary legacies cannot be paid, the "foregoing provisions" cannot be carried out, and no property passes under the Fourth article of the Will; there is a default of appointment for each of the trusts and the principal passes to Philip's lawful surviving issue.
This result, as the District Judge held, would be contrary to the manifest intent of the testator set out in the Third article of his Will expressly limiting testamentary provision for plaintiffs to $2000.
To act on plaintiffs' theory would require the Court to accept plaintiffs' rather strained interpretation of the Executor's Inventory in the Probate Court proceedings, an exhibit in the District Court case, which shows Trust 33703 as an asset. Plaintiffs argue that the trusts cannot pay their bequests nor can the Probate Court authorize such payment because legacies are not claims, taxes or administrative expenses, and the trusts (and the claim scheduled in the inventory) refer only to an agreement to pay claims, taxes and administrative expenses. However, the record includes an affidavit of the Director of Michael Reese indicating that in accepting the principal of Trust 33703, Michael Reese agreed to pay claims, debts and expenses arising out of Philip's probate estate to the extent that the trust would have been obligated but specifically stating that:
In keeping with the foregoing Michael Reese...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LB Steel, LLC v. Walsh Constr. Co. (In re LB Steel, LLC)
...doctrine is asserted was a party to the other litigation. Nat'l Indus. Chem. Co. , 237 B.R. at 442 (citing Dreyfus v. First Nat'l Bank of Chi. , 424 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir. 1970) ). That the Clerk was the defendant in Count II of the First Adversary is irrelevant. See Palka v. City of Chi......
-
U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc.
...was the same and the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to the former litigation." Dreyfus v. First Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 424 F.2d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 832, 91 S.Ct. 64, 27 L.Ed.2d 63 (1970). Finally, Robinson's sole claims in the federal actio......
-
Greene v. United States
...if possible, to every part of the will. Knisely v. Simpson, 397 Ill. 605, 74 N.E.2d 695 (1947). See also Dreyfus v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 424 F.2d 1171 (7th Cir. 1970); Feder v. Luster, 54 Ill.2d 6, 294 N.E.2d 293 (1973). Plaintiff asks us to find that the testamentary trust bequest i......
-
Local 98, Detroit, Mich., of United Ass'n of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO v. Flamegas Detroit Corp., AFL-CI
...joined in the present action, or vice versa, so long as the judgment was rendered on the merits * * *'. Dreyfus v. First National Bank of Chicago, 424 F.2d 1171, 1175, (CA7, 1970); see Jordon v. Stuart Creamery, Inc., 258 Iowa 1, 137 N.W.2d 259 The estoppel doctrine requires the issues in t......