Phelps v. State St. Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1953 |
| Citation | 115 N.E.2d 382,330 Mass. 511 |
| Parties | PHELPS et al. v. STATE STREET TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Richard S. Bowers, Brookline, guardian ad litem.
Ely H. Chayet, Boston, and Andrew G. Geishecker, Dedham, for petitioners-appellees.
George A. Goldstein, Boston, for respondents N. Paul Phelps and Helen Phelps Olmstead.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Jessie Allen Phelps, on January 16, 1942, established a trust fund to be held by trustees, of whom the respondent State Street Trust Company is now the sole remaining trustee. The petitioners are all the beneficiaries under that trust, with exceptions of Norman P. Phelps, the husband, and Helen Phelps Olmstead, the daughter of the settlor, who are respondents. The twelfth paragraph of the trust instrument was in part as follows: 'I reserve the right at any time or times to amend or revoke this trust in whole or in part by an instrument in writing acknowledged and delivered to the trustees.' That paragraph also provided that 'any amendment or any partial revocation shall take effect only when consented to in writing by the trustees.'
Purported amendments were made on February 12, 1942, March 2, 1942, and May 14, 1943, which were accepted by the trustees but were not acknowledged by the settlor. On October 9, 1947, a further amendment was made which was accepted by the trustees but was not acknowledged by the settlor. An amendment was made on July 3, 1944, which was both accepted by the trustees and acknowledged by the settlor. The petition prays for a determination of the validity of the amendments and of the rights of the petitioners.
The law of Massachusetts is plain that a valid trust, once created, cannot be revoked or altered except by the exercise of a reserved power to do so, which must be exercised in strict conformity to its terms. Viney v. Abbott, 109 Mass. 300; Leahy v. Old Colony Trust Co., 326 Mass. 49, 52, 93 N.E.2d 238, and cases cited; Scott, Trusts (1939) § 330.8. We think that the requirement of acknowledgment meant that the settlor must acknowledge the instrument making the alteration before a public officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments of other writings. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 4, § 6, Sixth; c. 183, §§ 29, 30; McQuatt v. McQuatt, 320 Mass. 410, 415, 69 N.E.2d 806. And we think that the requirement of acknowledgment was not wholly for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samia v. Central Oil Co. of Worcester
...for the sisters. No argument about this allowance has been made by any defendant. On the present record (see Phelps v. State Street Trust Co., 330 Mass. 511, 513, 115 N.E.2d 382) we have not passed upon its propriety and should not be taken to have approved it. As was said by Rugg, C. J., i......
-
Porst v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (In re Porst)
...by the exercise of a reserved power to do so, which must be exercised in strict conformity to its terms.” Phelps v. State St. Trust Co., 330 Mass. 511, 512, 115 N.E.2d 382, 383 (1953). In Phelps, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court evaluated the efficacy of purported amendments by the ......
-
Bongaards v. Millen
...except by the exercise of a reserved power to do so, which must be exercised in strict conformity to its terms." Phelps v. State St. Trust Co., 330 Mass. 511, 512 (1953). We conclude, as did the judge and the Appeals Court, that the property was held by Jean in a valid trust from the time o......
-
Ward v. Ward
...strict conformity to its terms." Bongaards v. Millen, 440 Mass. 10, 15, 793 N.E.2d 335 (2003), quoting from Phelps v. State St. Trust Co., 330 Mass. 511, 512, 115 N.E.2d 382 (1953). 4. "The phrase, `a mutual mistake,' as used in equity, means a mistake common to all the parties to a written......