Hurst v. Kravis

• Decision Date: 16 December 1958
• Docket Number: No. 38477,38477
• Citation: 333 P.2d 314
• Parties: Thurman S. HURST, Guardian ad litem, and Trustee, etc., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Raymond F. KRAVIS, Louis P. Myers, and National Bank of Tulsa, cotrustees, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 314

333 P.2d 314

1958 OK 290

Thurman S. HURST, Guardian ad litem, and Trustee, etc Plaintiffs in Error, v. Raymond F. KRAVIS, Louis P. Myers, and National Bank of Tulsa, cotrustees, et al., Defendants in Error.

No. 38477.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 16, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In actions to construe the provisions of a trust instrument, the only necessary parties to such actions shall be those persons designated by name in the instrument creating the trust, and any persons who may be actually receiving distributions from the trust estate at the time the action is filed; contingent beneficiaries designated as a class shall not be necessary parties. 60 O.S.1951 § 175.23, subd. C.

2. As a general rule a trust, even though it is a 'spendthrift' trust, or one declared by the trust agreement to be irrevocable, may be revoked by mutual consent of the settlor and all persons beneficially interested in said trust.

3. A beneficial interest in a trust, within the meaning of the rule that a trust may be revoked by mutual consent of the settlor and all persons beneficially interested therein, is an interest taken by purchase under the trust, and if the interest is taken by descent it is not such an interest as to require that person's consent in order to revoke the trust.

4. In construing the terms of a trust agreement the intention of the settlor of the trust should control when such intention is not in conflict with established principles of law.

5. A court of equity has jurisdiction to correct by reformation an unintentional mistake and clerical error in a trust instrument.

6. In an equity proceeding the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Appeal from District Court of Tulsa County; Leslie Webb, Judge.

Suit brought by Raymond F. Kravis, Louis P. Myers and the National Bank of Tulsa, Oklahoma, as co-trustees of an express trust, plaintiffs, against H. P. Taubman, Sophia Taubman, Louis Taubman, Sol Taubman, Morris Taubman, Milton Taubman, Robert Taubman, Rosalie Taubman, now Rosalie Shalom, all adults, they being the only persons beneficially interested therein, and Lawrence Nathan Taubman, Maurine Taubman, Deborah Anne Taubman, William David Taubman, Elizabeth Rachel Taubman, Daniel Marc Taubman Richard Jeffry Taubman, Anne Taubman, Sarah Katherine Taubman, Hillary Lu Taubman, Andrea Minda Taubman, all minors, defendants, they being contingent beneficiaries, to construe six identical trust agreements and identical amendments and codicils thereto and for identical reformation thereof. The adult defendants joined with the plaintiffs in requesting the relief prayed for. From a judgment granting the plaintiffs and adult defendants the relief prayed for, this appeal has been perfected by Thurman S. Hurst, Guardian ad Litem for the minor defendants, individually and as representatives as a class and as trustee for the unborn issue of the six adult defendants. Judgment affirmed.

Hurst & Scott, Pawnee, for plaintiffs in error.

Rosenstein, Fist & Mesirow, Floyd L. Rheam, and Jay W. Whitney, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Raymond F. Kravis, Louis P. Myers, and the National Bank of Tulsa, as co-trustees, in each of six identical trust agreements for the purpose of having the District Court construe portions thereof pursuant to the Oklahoma Trust Act, Title 60 O.S.1951 § 175.23, and for reformation. The defendants were H. P. Taubman and his wife, Sophia Taubman, settlors, and their six adult children, they being the only persons beneficially interested therein, and the settlors' eleven minor grandchildren, being all the children of settlors' six adult children.

It was alleged in the petition that the minor defendants were made parties in their individual capacities and as representatives of the class of contingent beneficiaries designated in the trust instruments and that the non-resident minor defendants who could not be served with process in the state could be adequately represented by menbers of the class who were served with process. Eight of the minor defendants were served with process and no service was had on the three minor defendants not resident in this state. Each of the three defendants not served had a brother or sister who was served.

The six adult children and the settlors filed answers in which they joined with the plaintiffs in requesting all the relief prayed for in the petition. The settlors alleged clerical error in the preparation of that portion of the trust instruments restricting the trustees to investing in private corporate stocks and bonds of a certain rating. This rating was so restrictive and high that it was impossible to carry out this provision of the trust. Settlors joined with the plaintiffs in requesting the court to reform the instrument to provide a less restrictive rating in accordance with the original intention of the settlors.

In 1936 the settlors, by separate identical trust agreements, established a trust for each of their six children and the subsequent amendment and codicils thereto were in each instance identical. These trust agreements were before the...