Hurst v. First Kentucky Trust Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1978 |
Parties | Jane Ellen Boggess HURST, Movant, v. FIRST KENTUCKY TRUST COMPANY and Lucy Kavanaugh Beam et al., Respondents. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Marvin J. Hirm, Greenebaum, Doll, Matthews & Boone, Louisville, for movant.
John P. Sandidge, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, for respondents.
T. Jeremiah Beam died testate on May 2, 1977. The First Kentucky Trust Company and Lucy Kavanaugh Beam, his surviving spouse, were designated and qualified as co-executors of the estate pursuant to the terms of his last will and testament.
Jane Ellen Boggess Hurst, a niece of T. Jeremiah Beam, is a contingent beneficiary under his will in the event of the failure of Lucy Beam to exercise a power of appointment granted to her in the will. The contingent interest of Hurst, absent exercise of the power of appointment, consists of a fractional interest in what remains after the death of Lucy Beam, of the corpus of a trust created for her benefit during her lifetime. For this reason, the primary interest of Hurst concerns the method used in selecting assets to be allocated by the co-executors to the widow and to the trust in satisfaction of the bequests for these purposes.
Item IV of the will of T. Jeremiah Beam and the first literary paragraph of Item V of the will provide:
Hurst asserts that these provisions of the T. Jeremiah Beam will require that assets set over to the widow or to the trust must be distributed with reference to the value for federal tax purposes and without reference to their value at the date of distribution of the value on that date differs from the value for federal estate tax purposes.
The co-executors contend that even though the assets ultimately allocated to Lucy Beam outright and to the trust are of equal value for federal estate tax purposes these assets must also be of equal value when eventually distributed.
The trial court entered a judgment, supported by adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, directing that the co-executors distribute estate assets in satisfaction of the bequests under Item IV and Item V of the T. Jeremiah Beam will in a fair, impartial, and equitable manner so that all distributions, including cash, shall be fairly representative of appreciation or depreciation in the value of all property, including cash, available for distribution.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted Hurst's motion for discretionary review and now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
A resolution of the issues advanced by the parties to this proceeding requires a reexamination of the duties and obligations of a fiduciary (the co-executors) in dealing with the various beneficiaries named in the will of T. Jeremiah Beam. Of necessity, this requires an analysis of the pertinent clauses of the will correlated with the exercise of the duties of the fiduciary within the context and meaning of Item IV and Item V of the will.
The courts have consistently refused to restrict the right of a testator to decide who will be his beneficiaries and what part of his estate each will receive. However, when a fiduciary, in the exercise of his discretion, is vested with the authority to distribute the assets of an estate, he is required to exercise his discretion fairly.
It has been the duty of fiduciaries for centuries to deal fairly and impartially with all beneficiaries. This basic concept and rule is stated in Restatement of Trusts, 2d, Section 183, as follows:
"Where there are two or more beneficiaries of a trust, the trustee is under a duty to deal impartially with them."
The will of T. Jeremiah Beam clearly establishes his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Acuity, a Mut. Ins. Co. v. Planters Bank, Inc.
...courts have applied other sections of the Restatement 2d of Trusts in Compton v. Compton, 435 S.W.2d at 78 and Hurst v. First Kentucky Trust Co. 560 S.W.2d 819, 820 (Ky.1978) indicating a willingness to apply the RST 2d in this area of 5. Even in our case, the bank obtained proper and bindi......
-
Pastan v. Pastan
...thus saving a marital trust, under a will explicitly directing that estate tax values control distribution. See also Hurst v. First Ky. Trust Co., 560 S.W.2d 819 (Ky.1978). ...
-
Pete v. Anderson
... ... No. 2011–SC–000692–DG. Supreme Court of Kentucky. Nov. 21, 2013 ... [413 S.W.3d 293] Scott Allen ... Pete explained to me that a trust fund would be created for the benefit of my children, including Michael ... The first statute created a cause of action for families of individuals killed in ... ...
-
Drake v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
... ... their decedents were employees of BFG at its plant in Louisville, Kentucky. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant intentionally, with wanton ... On appeal plaintiffs raise two issues. First, whether the district court erred in applying the statutes of limitations ... may have been caused by the defendant's conduct." Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, 580 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Ky.1979) ... ...