Olsen v. Youngerman

• Decision Date: 19 November 1907
• Citation: 113 N.W. 938,136 Iowa 404
• Parties: OLSEN ET AL. v. YOUNGERMAN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

136 Iowa 404

113 N.W. 938

OLSEN ET AL.

v.YOUNGERMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 19, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; A. H. McVey, Judge.

Minnie Youngerman died testate April 26, 1905, and her will was duly admitted to probate. Six children survived her, and to each, or to the trustees for the benefit of the children of each, she left one-sixth of the residue of her estate remaining after the payment of certain legacies. The debts of deceased will not exceed $500, while there is $19,234.19 in the hands of the executor out of which to pay these, together with certain legacies, not exceeding in the aggregate $10,000. In addition to this, there are some household goods and 1,098 shares of stock in a corporation known as the “C. Youngerman Estate, Incorporated.” In the fourth paragraph of the original will, testatrix devised and bequeathed “to Simon Casady and Crom Bowen, as trustees, in trust only for the use of may son George H. Youngerman or his heirs, as hereinafter set forth, an individual one-sixth.” The disposition to be made of this was indicated in the next paragraph, which was subsequently superseded by item 5 of the first codicil, which may be set out in full: “Item V. I desire and direct, that the one-sixth so devised and bequeathed to the said Simon Casady and Crom Bowen, as trustees, in trust, for the use and benefit of my said son, George Youngerman and his children, shall be managed and controlled by them, the said trustees and their successors in this trust, during the life time of the said George Youngerman, they, the said trustees, to collect, all rents, incomes, and profits arising therefrom, and to make and execute all deeds, conveyances, releases and leases, and other instruments, as may be necessary and proper in their judgment, for the due execution of said trust, without obtaining the order of any court therefor, and to pay each year in quarterly payments, the net income arising from the said interest, rents and profits, after paying all expenses thereof, and the expenses connected with or incident to this trust, to my said son George Youngerman, and to his four children now living, to-wit Mrs. Cora Oleson, Minnie Youngerman, Louisa Youngerman and Conrad Youngerman, each the one-fifth part of said net income; that is to say, to the said George Youngerman, one-fifth; to the said Mrs. Cora Oleson, one-fifth; to the said Minnie Youngerman, one-fifth; to the said Louisa Youngerman, one-fifth; and the said Conrad Youngerman, one-fifth, and at the death of my said son, George Youngerman, said trustees or their successors in this trust are hereby directed and required to pay over, or transfer, the principal sum then remaining of the undivided one-sixth, so devised to said trustees, to the children of my said son George Youngerman, now living, to-wit: Mrs. Cora Oleson, Minnie Youngerman, Louisa Youngerman and Conrad Youngerman, each share and share alike; and in case of the death of any one of the four children above named, prior to the death of their father, the said George Youngerman without leaving children, issue of their body, the share of said deceased child, so dying without issue, in the rents and profits, as well as the principal sum, shall be distributed between the survivors of said four children. And I hereby direct that the said quarterly payments herein ordered and directed to be paid to the said George Youngerman, by the said trustees, to-wit: one-fifth of the net income, shall be paid to the said George Youngerman in person, and in no event shall any such payment or any part thereof be paid to any assignee or creditor of the said George Youngerman, and in case any creditor of the said George Youngerman shall attempt by means of any legal process to collect the same, then I direct, that the amount so coming to the said George Youngerman shall be paid to the children of the said George Youngerman, above named, or the survivors as above stated, in the same manner and in the same proportion as if he, the said George Youngerman, was then deceased, as hereinbefore stated.” All of the beneficiaries are of age, and it is their contention that, being sui juris, and entitled to four-fifths of the use and to the property, the trust as to such four-fifths of the property should be dissolved and the same turned over to them and the trusteeship as to one-fifth thereof only continued in order that the income to be derived therefrom may be paid George H. Youngerman during the period of his natural life as contemplated by the will. The district court so decreed, and the trustees appeal. Reversed.Bowen & Brockett, for appellants.

A. D. Pugh, for appellees.

LADD, J.

By the terms of the will and codicils, the one-sixth of the estate passed to the trustees as such only to be managed by them during the life of George H. Youngerman, to pay one-fifth of the net income quarterly to said George and the same proportion to each of his four children, and, upon the death of said George, to distribute all or that portion of the one-sixth of the estate then remaining to said children if they survive their father, share and share alike; but, in event of the death of any one of the children prior to the death of their father, without leaving children, issue of their body, that the share of such deceased child in the income, as well as the property, be distributed to the surviving children of said George Youngerman. In short, George H. Youngerman is not interested in the four-fifths of the one-sixth of the testatrix's estate disposed of in the fourth clause of the will and the fifth item of the first codicil, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the income and to the property itself if they survive him upon the decease of their father. Neither alienation of the income or the property by the children is prohibited, though it is otherwise provided as to the portion of the income to be paid the father. As to him the will creates what is termed a spendthrift's trust. See Roberts v. Stevens, 84 Me. 325, 24 Atl. 873, 17 L. R. A. 266. If the plaintiffs are entitled to the beneficial use, and nothing but time is wanting to entitle them to the property itself, there is no reason for the continuance of the trust. In that event, they are the only parties interested, and, if they deem it for their best interest to terminate the trust and care for the property themselves, no tenable ground exists for denying them the privilege. The trust in such a case interferes neither with the alienation of the corpus of the estate nor the income, so that no practical...