Lane v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1947
• Docket Number: 39723
• Citation: 201 S.W.2d 288,356 Mo. 76
• Parties: Ralph M. Lane, Eric U. Lane and Francis A. Lane, Appellants, v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, a Corporation, Trustee, and John P. Cullinane, Administrator of the Estate of Max Richard Wackwitz, and St. Louis Union Trust Company, Executor of the Estate of Julia Lane Wackwitz, Deceased
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

201 S.W.2d 288

356 Mo. 76

Ralph M. Lane, Eric U. Lane and Francis A. Lane, Appellants, v. St. Louis Union Trust Company, a Corporation, Trustee, and John P. Cullinane, Administrator of the Estate of Max Richard Wackwitz, and St. Louis Union Trust Company, Executor of the Estate of Julia Lane Wackwitz, Deceased

No. 39723

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 10, 1947

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Robert L Aronson, Judge.

Reversed.

J Porter Henry and Green, Henry & Evans for appellants.

(1) The trust instrument constituted a marriage settlement or jointure within the meaning of Section 337, R.S. 1939. The trial court erred in holding otherwise. All the necessary elements were present. Leavy v. Cook, 171 Mo. 292; Saunders v. Saunders, 144 Mo. 482, 488; Logan v. Phillips 18 Mo. 22. (2) A jointure may consist of personal property as well as real property. Logan v. Phillips, 18 Mo. 22; Hoyt v. Davis, 21 Mo.App. 235; Mowser v. Mowser, 87 Mo. 440. (3) A jointure may be created before or after marriage. Saunders v. Saunders, 144 Mo. 482; Robert v. Walker, 82 Mo. 200; Sec. 335, R.S. 1939. (4) A jointure may be created by trust or will. Logan v. Phillips, 18 Mo. 22; Leavy v. Cook, 171 Mo. 292. (5) Major Max Richard Wackwitz abandoned his wife and was thereby barred from jointure. Sec. 337, R.S. 1939; Leavy v. Cook, 171 Mo. 292; Plummer v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 229 Mo.App. 638, 81 S.W.2d 453. (6) An inter vivos trust created in Missouri, the trust res situated in Missouri, and the place of administration being in Missouri is governed by Missouri law. Hutchison v. Ross, 262 N.Y. 381, 187 N.E. 65; Equitable Trust Co. v. Pratt, 117 Misc. 708, 193 N.Y.S. 152; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 24 A.2d 309, 139 A.L.R. 117; Krause v. Jeannette Inv. Co., 333 Mo. 509, 62 S.W.2d 890; Restatement Conflict of Laws, secs. 294 (2), 297; Cavers, Trusts Inter Vivos and the Conflict of Laws, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 161, 189 (1930); Beale, Living Trusts of Movables in the Conflict of Laws, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 969, 970-971. (7) Courts refuse to enforce remedies which offend the strong public policy of the forum. Jamison Coal & Coke Co. v. Goltra, 143 F.2d 889; Maxey v. Railey & Bros. Banking Co., 57 S.W.2d 1091; Wilson v. Craig, 175 Mo. 362, 400; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, sec. 612; Windt v. Lindy, 169 Tenn. 210, 84 S.W.2d 99. (8) The law of the forum governs in the absence of proof of foreign law. Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N.Y. 298; Sloan v. Torry, 78 Mo. 623; Gerli & Co. Inc. v. Cunard S.S. Co., 48 F.2d 115; Doiron v. Vacuum Oil Co., 164 La. 15, 113 So. 748; Galard v. Winans, 11 Md. 434, 74 A. 626; Wickersham v. Johnson, 104 Cal. 407, 38 P. 89; Fletcher v. Murray Commercial Co., 72 Wash. 515, 130 P. 1140.

Detjen & Detjen for respondent John P. Cullinane.

(1) The trust instrument did not create a jointure within the meaning of Section 337, R.S. Mo. 1939, in that it lacked one of the essential elements, which is, that a jointure must take effect immediately upon the death of the settlor. 19 C.J 507-8, Secs. 145, 146, Notes 16, 29. (2) This rule applies to legal jointures. 28 C.J. 122, Sec. 54, Note 58. (3) As well as to equitable jointures. Ibid, page 124, Note 73; Moran v. Stewart, 173 Mo. 207, 73 S.W. 177. (4) Succession is governed by the law of the place where the decedent was domiciled at the time of her decease, and not by the conflicting laws of all the various places where the property (personal estate) happened at the time to be situated. Restatement of the Law; Conflict of Laws, sec. 301; 11 Am. Jur. 370, sec. 82, note 11; Ibid, 379, sec. 92, note 16; 88 A.L.R. 856, 862. (5) The same is true with respect to the respective rights of husband and wife, where personal property is concerned. 11 Am. Jur. 371, sec. 85, note 20; 13 R.C.L. 1001, sec. 22, note 6; Ibid, p. 1356, sec. 400, note 8; Matter of Mesa, 159 N.Y.S. 59; McLean v. Hardin, 56 N.C. 294; 3 Jones N.C. Eq. Rep. 294. (6) If appellants wanted to show that under the law of the domicile of the husband and wife the husband has forfeited the rights claimed by him in this case, the burden was and is upon appellants to make proof of such law the same as of any other question of fact necessary to make their case. 64 C.J. 364, sec. 354; 22 C.J. 70, sec. 14, note 52; Cummings v. Dent, 189 S.W. 1161. (7) Sec. 337, R.S. Mo. 1939, is not applicable to this case because: A. The amendment of that section making it applicable to husbands as well as wives was enacted after the date of the trust instrument involved in this case. Historical Note under Sec. 337, R.S. Mo. 1939. (8) The Amendment of this section which added as a cause for barring dower, etc., "abandonment without reasonable cause," etc., was enacted after the date of the trust instrument. Ibid. (9) Vested rights acquired by virtue of the law existing at the time of a marriage cannot be disturbed by subsequent legislation. 12 C.J. 960, Sec. 502, Note 40; 30 C.J. 660, Notes 13-15; Winn v. Riley et al., 151 Mo. 61; Leete v. The State Bank of St. Louis, 115 Mo. 184; Rongtell v. Strode, 126 Mo.App. 348, 103 S.W. 510. (10) It is only the law of the place where the contract is entered into, in force at the time of the making of the same, that enters into the contract as though it were expressed or referred to therein. 13 C.J. 560, Sec. 523, Note 37; Parks v. Connecticut F. Ins. Co., 26 Mo.App. 511; Kavannaugh v. Supreme Council, etc., 158 Mo.App. 234, 138 S.W. 359; Kessler v. Clayes, 147 Mo.App. 88, 125 S.W. 799. (11) Subsequent marital misconduct of one of the spouses, who are parties to a postnuptial settlement or transfer does not entitle the innocent party to avoid or set same aside. 29 Am. L. Rep. 205; Kinzey v. Kinzey (1893), 115 Mo. 496; Saunders v. Saunders, 144 Mo. 482; 13 R.C.L. 1356, Sec. 400; 30 C.J. 662, Sec. 227 1/3, Notes 38-41. (12) This is especially true where no condition to that effect is inserted in the contract. Chase v. Phillips, 153 Mass. 17, 26 N.E. 136; 30 C.J. 658, Sec. 224, Notes 81-85. (13) Forfeitures are not favored by the law. 12 Am. Jur. 1016, Sec. 436, Note 18; 13 C.J. 541, Sec. 512, Note 26; Hartmann v. C.B. & Q.R. Co., 192 Mo.App. 271; Stout v. Mo. Fidelity Co. (A.), 179 S.W. 993. (14) While the question of the validity of a trust agreement pertaining to personal property may be determinable by the law of the place where the trust is created or the trust property situated, the rights of succession between husband and wife with respect to such property are determined by the law of their domicile. 13 R.C.L., Sec. 22; 30 C.J. 509, Sec. 10, Notes 84, 94; Riddick v. Walsh, 15 Mo. 519; R.S. Mo. 1939, Sec. 253. (15) The law of the jurisdiction in which an offer or contract is accepted governs the rights of the parties. 12 C.J. 580-581, Sec. 581, Notes 58, 59; Peak v. International Harvester, 194 Mo.App. 128, 186 S.W. 574. (16) There is no presumption that the statutory law of another state is the same as that of the forum. Restatement of the Law; Conflict of Laws, Sec. 623; 22 C.J. 151, Sec. 87, page 155, Note 9. (17) This rule applies particularly to foreign countries which have essentially different institutions. 22 C.J. 153, Sec. 87, Note 4; Booth v. Scott (Mo.), 205 S.W. 633. (18) A will may be construed in connection with writings annexed or referred to therein. 69 C.J. 124, Sec. 1165, Note 13; Ray v. Walker, 293 Mo. 447, 240 S.W. 187; Tillman v. City of Carthage, 247 S.W. 992, 995. (19) Reference to the trust agreement in executrix's will gave the now deceased husband a testamentary interest in her estate, which is not subject to the provisions of Section 337, R.S. Mo. 1939. Hiatt v. Haitt, 168 S.W.2d 1087; Hourigan v. McBee, 130 S.W.2d 661. (20) The public policy of the State of Missouri is designed for the protection of its inhabitants, not those of foreign countries. 12 C.J. 457, Sec. 42, Notes 10, 14; Polydore v. Prince, 19 F. Cas. No. 11257, 1 Ware 402; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243; 15 C.J.S. 833, Sec. 3, Note 16; Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 224 N.Y. 99; R.S. Mo. 1939, Sec. 253. (21) Rights of husband and wife and their creditors are determined by the law of their matrimonial domicile. 13 R.C.L. 1001, Sec. 22, Note 6. (22) Construction of a marriage contract depends upon the law existing at the time of its execution. 30 C.J. 645, Note 71; Ibid, 646, Sec. 209, Notes 72, 76; Ibid, 674, Note 32; Ray v. Crouch, 10 Mo.App. 321. (23) The evidence in this case does not establish as a fact the claim of appellants that Mr. Wackwitz abandoned his wife without a reasonable cause and continued to live separate and apart from her for the space of one whole year next preceding her death. Collier v. Porter, 322 Mo. 697, 16 S.W.2d 49. (24) Mr. Wackwitz's written acceptance of the trust, giving up his right to even claim an interest in his wife's estate, was a forbearance, constituting a valuable consideration for his rights under the trust instrument. 13 C.J., page 342, Sec. 193, Notes 7, 11; Lindell v. Rokes, 60 Mo. 249; 13 C.J., page 346, Section 197, Notes 69, 70; Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534. (25) To deny the right of defendant Wackwitz, or his administrator, to claim the trust property in this case under the trust instrument of his deceased wife and his acceptance thereof in writing, would be a denial of said defendant's rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, as well as of Article II, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri of 1875 and Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri of 1945, each of which prohibits any law impairing the obligation of a contract. 12 C.J. 1056, Sec. 699, Note 88; Ibid 1057, Sec. 702, Note 99; In re Op. of Justices, 190 Mass. 605, 77 N.E. 1038; Hughes v. Cuming, 165...