Hollis v. Estate of Hollis
| Decision Date | 19 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 61668,61668 |
| Citation | 845 S.W.2d 156 |
| Parties | Michelle HOLLIS, et al., Minors (Southwestern Bell Corp.), Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The ESTATE OF Adell HOLLIS, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Nadine V. Nunn, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.
Bert L. Gates, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-respondents.
This appeal follows a court tried case in the probate court. Southwestern Bell Corporation and General American Life Insurance Company filed an interpleader petition in the decedent estate of Adell Hollis. They alleged conflicting claims of two minor children of Adell Hollis and Mary Ann Citchen as trustee for the children. The court found no trust was created by the Will of Adell Hollis or in any separate document. The court ordered the funds paid directly to the children. Mary Ann Citchen as trustee appeals.
On November 29, 1982, decedent signed a Beneficiary Designation form with her employer, Southwestern Bell. The form named her two minor children as beneficiaries and her sister, Mary Ann Citchen, as trustee for the children. Additionally, decedent checked a box marked Trustee Designation and completed the name and address portion. She did not, however, complete the blanks asking for the title of the trust agreement or the date executed.
Sixteen days after executing the Beneficiary Designation form, decedent drafted her own Will. In that document, she again named her sister as trustee for her children. In addition to the life insurance proceeds, decedent wanted all her assets, with a few named exceptions, to be included in the trust. The relevant portions of the Will are as follows:
All of funds from my insurance policies and whateverother (sic) means that is mine goes into the trustee (sic) for my children.
Mary is trustee over my estate and has the authority to use the fund to pay for my children (sic) support and welfare ...
I leave sole ownership and control of my business, Hollis Enterprises, Inc., to my children, Derris and Michelle equally and I request that my sister, Mary oversee and give guidance and advice to the best of her ability to the running of the business until my children are 30 years old ... I leave my shares of AT & T, SW Bell stock to my children with Mary as Trustee for them. My wish is that they use the money for college education.... All of my cash assets should be put into a trustee (sic) for DERRIE & MICHELLE which will be distributed to them at age 25.
Decedent died on April 26, 1987. At that time, her former husband was named conservator for their then minor children and her sister was named personal representative. Southwestern Bell and General American instituted an interpleader action when both the conservator and personal representative/trustee claimed the funds.
The court entered judgment giving title to one half of the insurance proceeds to decedent's son, who had reached the age of majority. The other half was given to the conservator for decedent's daughter. The basis for this order was that the Will was not sufficiently specific to create a trust. We disagree.
In two points on appeal, the personal representative/trustee claims the court erred in misconstruing the Non-Probate Transfer Law and misinterpreting decedent's intent. We will address the points as one.
Since the case was court tried, it is our duty to affirm the judgment if it is supported by substantial evidence, if it is not against the weight of the evidence, and if it is not based on any erroneous declaration or application of law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
The will and trust agreement form a part of the same estate plan, therefore, they must be construed together. Schupbach v. Schupbach, 760 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Mo.App.1988). To create a valid trust, there must be a beneficiary, a trustee, a trust corpus and actual delivery, assignment or conveyance of legal title to the trustee. Estate of Harvey v. Luther College, 802 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Mo.App.1991). "The paramount rule of construction in determining the meaning of a trust provision is that the grantor's intent is controlling." Marvin F. Hall Trust v. Hall, 810 S.W.2d 710, 713-14 (Mo.App.1991).
Additionally, the keystone of construction in determining the meaning of a will is intent of testator, and this intent must be gathered from the whole will and not single words, passages or sentences. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 677 S.W.2d 343, 346 (Mo.App.1984). A will should always be interpreted to carry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeler v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
...to plaintiff. Those insurance proceeds were not subject to probate. See Section 461.001 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1998); Hollis v. Estate of Hollis, 845 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Mo.App.1993). Therefore, the children's claims were not "claims against the estate of a deceased person" within the meaning of Secti......
-
Tonkovich v. Crown Life Ins. Co.
...decided a case in which a beneficiary designation and life insurance trust were not executed simultaneously. Hollis v. Estate of Hollis, 845 S.W.2d 156 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). In Hollis, the grantor signed a beneficiary designation naming her two children as beneficiaries and her sister as trus......
-
Wheeler v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation
...to plaintiff. Those insurance proceeds were not subject to probate. See Section 461.001 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 1998); Hollis v. Estate of Hollis, 845 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Mo. App. 1993). Therefore, the children's claims were not "claims against the estate of a deceased person" within the meaning of S......
-
Switzer v. Mercantile Bank of St. Louis, N.A.
...the will and determine whether Hart intended Switzer to be a beneficiary, for the testator's intent controls. Hollis v. Estate of Hollis, 845 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). In construing Hart's will, it is not the question of Switzer's right to take, but rather a question of Hart's int......