Gilmer v. Gilmer
Decision Date | 13 April 1944 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 196. |
Parties | GILMER v. GILMAR et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; L.S. Moore, Judge.
Pettus & Fuller, of Selma, for appellant.
Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Selma, and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellees.
This is a bill in equity by certain alleged beneficiaries in a testamentary trust, and seeks to have the court take jurisdiction to supervise and control the administration of the trust, to construe the will insofar as their interests appear, and to define and declare the rights, powers and duties of the trustee, and the scope of the discretion vested in him by the will, and to have the interest of complainants in the income declared and distributed. The trustee individually and officially is made respondent. His demurrer was overruled, and he appeals, with that ruling as the only assignment of error.
The demurrer is direct and raises questions as follows: (1) That no demand for an accounting is alleged; (2) fails to make parties persons (not named in the bill or shown to exist) who might take the residue on the death of the successive trustees; (3) no cause is given for the construction of the will; (4) the will relieves the trustee from accounting; (5) the will prohibits complainants from questioning the amount of compensation of the trustee or his living expense; (6) the bill shows no fraud or mismanagement by the trustee; (7) or that he has exceeded the power conferred in him; and (8) that under the will the trustee took a fee simple interest in the property.
The first two grounds of the demurrer are not argued by appellant in brief, and need no discussion by us.
All the other grounds seem to go to the contention that complainants do not show a right to have the will construed, or to any relief, because of the plain terms used in it which need no construction, and because it seeks to controvert rather than to effectuate its provisions, and because it alleges no abuse or mismanagement of the trust; and that complainants have no rights under the will, since the respondent takes the entire fee.
The will purports to create an express trust: item 2 of which is as follows:
And item 3 is as follows:
These complainants are the beneficiaries named in it other than the respondent, trustee.
The bill cannot be supported as seeking a statutory declaratory judgment because it does not show the existence of an actual concrete controversy as to any particular matter justiciable in nature. Section 156 et seq., Title 7, Code of 1940. The parties do not contend otherwise.
The bill alleges that testatrix died October 8, 1928, and that the will was admitted to probate December 19, 1928. But it is not alleged that letters testamentary were issued, or what is the status of the administration apart from the trust. See, Badham v. Badham, 244 Ala. 622, 14 So.2d 730(8 and 9). We will therefore consider the trust apart from the administration, and as though there is none, as counsel have done. It alleges that for the fourteen years since the death of the testatrix defendant has had possession of the large trust properties, that he has married again, and has a child by his second wife, and uses the income not only for his own support but also for that of his second wife and child by her. That the income is greatly in excess of the amount necessary for his reasonable compensation, and personal support. The complainants are doubtful as to the true meaning of the will; whether and to what extent they have a present interest in the income, and, if so, to what extent respondent may use the income, especially for the support of his second wife and his child by her. No mention is made of testatrix having a child.
The question on this appeal is not to review the trial court on a construction of the will. That court has not construed it, but has only held, in overruling the demurrer, that complainants make out a case showing that they have a right to have it construed. Hawkins v. Tanner, 243 Ala. 641, 11 So.2d 351(6); Carroll v. Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 6 So. 342; Reid v. Armistead, 224 Ala. 43(2), 138 So. 537; Ashurst v. Ashurst, 175 Ala. 667, 57 So. 442; Sellers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 235. By that rule the bill in the instant case is to be measured.
As a general principle when a trustee is in reasonable doubt as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Emp. v. Dawkins
...relief. Curjel v. Ash, 263 Ala. 585, 83 So.2d 293; Alabama State Milk Control Board v. Graham, 250 Ala. 49, 33 So.2d 11; Gilmer v. Gilmer, 245 Ala. 450, 17 So.2d 529; Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 38 So.2d 851; Talton v. Dickinson, 261 Ala. 11, 72 So.2d 723; Saenger Theatres C......
-
Kimbrough v. Dickinson
... ... instrument is ambiguous and uncertain in its meaning, or ... difficult and embarrassing in its interpretation. Gilmer ... v. Gilmer, 245 Ala. 450, 17 So.2d 529; Wilson v ... Rand, 215 Ala. 159, 110 So. 3; Carroll v ... Richardson, 87 Ala. 605, 6 So. 342; Sellers ... ...
-
Riley v. Wilkinson, 6 Div. 232.
... ... Perry on Trusts, § 511, p. 860; Sanderson v. Gabriel, ... Ala.Sup., 21 So.2d 256, 262(13); Gilmer v ... Gilmer, 245 Ala. 450(4), 17 So.2d 529; Sellers v ... Sellers, 35 Ala. 235; Carroll v. Richardson, 87 ... Ala. 605, 6 So. 342; 65 ... ...
-
Curjel v. Ash, 1 Div. 631
...a demurrer to a bill seeking declaratory relief should be sustained. Alabama State Milk Control Board v. Graham, supra; Gilmer v. Gilmer, 245 Ala. 450, 17 So.2d 529; Shadix v. City of Birmingham, 251 Ala. 610, 38 So.2d The only grounds of demurrer which are sufficiently argued here to warra......