Ittner v. United Missouri Bank of St. Louis, N.A.

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtGERALD M. SMITH
CitationIttner v. United Missouri Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. App. 1996)
Decision Date11 June 1996
Docket NumberNo. 69146,69146
PartiesMary Ann Sherrill ITTNER, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. UNITED MISSOURI BANK OF ST. LOUIS, N.A., et al., Defendants/Respondents.

Jerome T. Bollato, Bartley, Goffstein, Bollato & Lange, Clayton, for appellants.

Jonathan Igo, Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly & Davis, Clayton and Frank D. Keefe, Keefe & Baureis, P.C., Ellisville, for respondents.

GERALD M. SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the denial of their petition to terminate a testamentary trust and the court's action in amending the trust termination clause. We affirm.

In 1931, Fred A. Banister (testator) executed his will in which he created the trust in issue. He and his wife Nonie, had two children, Marian Banister Sherrill and Edward M. Banister, Sr. When the will was executed they also had two living grandchildren, Mary Ann Sherrill (subsequently Ittner), daughter of Marian Banister Sherrill, and Edward M. Banister, Jr., son of Edward M. Banister, Sr.

Testator died in 1932; his wife died 15 minutes later from shock upon learning of her husband's death. Edward M. Banister, Sr. died in 1940 leaving two children, Edward Jr. and Henry W. Banister, who died in 1973. Edward Jr. has three living children: Edward III, Leslie and Clayton. Henry left surviving two children, Brook and Jane, who with Mary Ann Sherrill are plaintiffs.

Testator's daughter, Marian, died in 1982 leaving one daughter, Mary Ann Sherrill, and three now living grandchildren, Patrick Bellinger, Rianna Erker, Antoinette Erker Chapman. Another grandchild, Sherry Bellinger, is deceased. Defendants are the current trustee bank and the descendants of testator who are not plaintiffs.

In the will, testator established a residuary trust with his children and brother as trustees. Basically the trust is to provide income one-third to Nonie, and the remainder to his children. Upon Nonie's death the income is to be distributed one-half each to his children. In the event of his children's death there are provisions for distribution of income to their descendants living at the time of distribution. Currently receiving income are plaintiff Mary Ann Sherrill, Edward Jr., and plaintiffs Brook and Jane Banister, per stirpes through their deceased father.

The provision which gives rise to this litigation is Nine (A) which provides:

(A) This trust shall continue until the expiration of a period of three (3) years after the death of the last to survive of my wife, who shall be living at the time of my death, and shall thereupon terminate; or shall terminate prior thereto in the event of and upon the death of the last to survive of my wife, Nonie, and all of my descendants.

Upon the termination of the trust as hereinabove provided, the principal then remaining in the trust estate and any net income thereon accrued or then on hand shall be transferred and conveyed free of trust, per stirpes, to my descendants, if any; otherwise, per stirpes to such persons, and in such amounts to such persons, as would receive the same had I then died intestate a resident of the State of Missouri, and possessed of said property. (Emphasis added)

The language at issue is the phrase "the last to survive of my wife" in the first paragraph. The issue presented is who must die in order for the trust to terminate three years later. There are three possibilities: (1) Nonie only, (2) Nonie and testator's living children, or (3) Nonie and testator's descendants living at his death. The trial court found it was testator's intent that the trust terminate pursuant to alternative (3). It therefore amended the clause by adding the words "or my descendants," between "wife" and "who".

Plaintiffs contend that the termination provision invokes alternative (2) and therefore the trust terminated in 1985, three years after the death of Marian, testator's last surviving child. Defendants contend the court correctly found the testator's intent and the trust will not end until three years after the death of Mary Ann Sherrill and Edward Jr.

In construing clauses of a will the court is guided by certain maxims of will construction. First and foremost is the intention of the testator. Royston v. Watts, 842 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.App.1992)[3-8]. If that intention is plain and unambiguous it governs unless contrary to law. In re Estate of Stengel v. Southard, 557 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.App.1977...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Estate of Straube v. Barber
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 16, 1999
    ...clearly appears, it is to be given effect." Estate of Boder, 850 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo. banc 1993); Ittner v. United Missouri Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); In re Estate of Stengel, 557 S.W.2d at 259. If after reading the will, there exists "doubt as to what the ......
4 books & journal articles
  • Section 18.20 Intent
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Estate Administration Deskbook Chapter 18 Construction and Interpretation of Wills and Trusts
    • Invalid date
    ...a trust or a will. Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995); see also: · Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (in construing a will, if the testator’s intent is plain and unambiguous, it governs unless contrary to law) · Holli......
  • Section 18.21 Ambiguities
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Estate Administration Deskbook Chapter 18 Construction and Interpretation of Wills and Trusts
    • Invalid date
    ...the language used in the instrument itself rather than the result of the distribution plan. Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); Boone County Nat’l Bank v. Edson, 760 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Mo. banc 1988). Whether a will is ambiguous is a question ......
  • H. Short and Simple Is Not Always Best
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Drafting the Basic Will and Trust Guidebook Chapter 2 FULL DISCLOSURE, BOTH WAYS
    • Invalid date
    ...obvious (patent) ambiguity in a will may be an embarrassment unless deliberate. See, e.g., Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Simultaneous deaths, deaths in a different order than actuarially probable, and changes in the relative wealth of bene......
  • Section 3.8 Short and Simple Is Not Always Best
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Estate Planning Deskbook Chapter 3 Drafting the Basic Will and Trust
    • Invalid date
    ...obvious (patent) ambiguity in a will may be an embarrassment unless deliberate. See, e.g., Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Simultaneous deaths, deaths in a different order than actuarially probable, and changes in the relative wealth of bene......