Howard v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 08 January 1945
• Docket Number: No. 12938.,12938.
• Citation: 146 F.2d 332
• Parties: HOWARD et al. v. JENNINGS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

146 F.2d 332 (1944)

HOWARD et al. v. JENNINGS.

No. 12938.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 20, 1944.

Rehearing Denied January 8, 1945.

G. T. Priest, of St. Louis, Mo. (Boyle & Priest, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellants.

Frank L. Ramacciotti, of St. Louis, Mo. (Ira B. Burns, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

This case was submitted to and decided by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff upon the pleadings. The defendants, who are the appellants here, are residents of Missouri, and appellee is a resident of California. Appellee was formerly the wife of appellant, Lloyd Boyle Howard, and one child was born of the marriage. Appellee obtained a decree of divorce from appellant Howard on October 11, 1934, in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, awarding her the custody of their minor child, then six years of age, and the sum of $40 per month as alimony and maintenance for herself and their minor child. Thereafter, on October 5, 1942, the decree of the court was modified under stipulation of the parties in respect of the alimony and maintenance for the minor child, to provide that $40 per month for the support and maintenance of said minor child should be paid from October 11, 1934, to April 11, 1936, and thereafter $30 per month until further order of the court. No part of such amounts was paid by appellant Howard and thereafter on April 5, 1943, in the District Court of the United States, within and for the Eastern District of Missouri, the appellee obtained judgment for $4003.22 with interest and costs, against the appellant Howard for the unpaid alimony and maintenance then due on the said California judgment. Execution was issued and delivered to the United States Marshal and returned nulla bona.

Sidney E. Boyle, a resident of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, who died in September, 1941, did by her last will and testament, set up two trusts in favor of the appellant Lloyd Boyle Howard. The will conveyed to the appellant Mississippi Valley Trust Company, a corporation, of the City of St. Louis, in trust for the said Lloyd Boyle Howard, the sum of $50,000 or its equivalent, in cash or other property. In paragraph "C" of the trust, it is provided that:

"During the continuance of the trust with respect thereto the beneficiary hereunder shall not have power to assign, pledge or otherwise transfer his interest or any part thereof in the trust estate, either principal or income, and any such assignment, pledge or transfer shall be void and of no effect; and no interest or right of the beneficiary hereunder in the trust estate, principal or income, shall be subject to garnishment, attachment or any other process based on or otherwise relating to any debt or liability of such beneficiary; nor shall any part of the principal or income of said trust fund be used or be subject to the payment of any claim or judgment for alimony, maintenance or support or otherwise that any present or future wife may have against said Lloyd Boyle Howard."

Under this trust the trustee was given the right to manage and invest the trust funds and to accumulate the income, and, in its discretion, to pay out or apply the principal and/or accumulated income for the sole welfare and benefit of Lloyd Boyle Howard.

The second trust (Paragraph "D") was in the sum of $250,000.00. It likewise required the trustee to manage, invest and re-invest the trust estate according to the powers set out in the trust, and to pay in as nearly equal monthly instalments as may be practicable, the entire net income derived therefrom to the said appellant Lloyd Boyle Howard during his natural life.

It also vested in the trustee the right to use any part of the principal for the benefit of Lloyd Boyle Howard in the event of illness, infirmity or other condition affecting the said Lloyd Boyle Howard, if, in the discretion of the trustee, such additional sum or sums shall be deemed reasonable and proper. It contained a provision which was in effect identical with paragraph "C" above set forth.

Upon the death of the appellant Lloyd Boyle Howard, the balance remaining in the trust was bequeathed to certain residuary legatees.

This action was brought by the appellee to establish an equitable lien upon the earnings of the trust estate from the commencement of this suit, and to enjoin the appellant Lloyd Boyle Howard from interfering with the payment of the judgment rendered in this court, and the future payments of $30 per month provided for in the California judgment, as modified by the stipulation between the appellee and the appellant Lloyd Boyle Howard.

Appellants filed answer alleging that appellee's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the petition on its face showed that the appellee had an adequate remedy at law, and that the court was without jurisdiction to proceed in equity.

At the trial appellee cited Section 570, R.S.Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A., which provides that,

"All restraints upon the rights of the cestui que trust to alienate or anticipate the income of any trust estate in the form of a spendthrift trust, or otherwise, and all attempts to withdraw said income of any trust estate from the claims of creditors of the cestui que trust, whether said restraints be by will or deed, now existing or in force, or, which may be hereafter executed in this state, be and the same are hereby declared null and void and of no effect, as against the claims of any wife, child or children, of said cestui que trust for support and maintenance, or, as against the claim of any said wife for alimony,"

and contended that this statute rendered null and void that provision of the trust providing that no part of the principal or income of said trust should be used for the payment of any claims or judgments for alimony, maintenance or support. The appellants contended that this was a special statute, passed in aid of the collection of alimony and maintenance, and applied only to judgments, orders or decrees for alimony rendered by the courts of the State of Missouri.

The court held that section 570 R.S.Mo. 1939, Mo.R.S.A., was applicable to all trusts whether the cestui que trust's obligations for alimony or support and maintenance arose under the laws of Missouri, or the laws of another state, and that the provision of the trust attempting to prevent the payment of any part of the income therefrom, so far as the wife and children were concerned, was null and void, and the income from the trust estate under the provisions thereof, which was required to be paid to the beneficiary at regular intervals, could not be withheld on account of any provision of the testator's will from the satisfaction of the obligation of appellant Howard. It was not contended that appell...