Preston v. Preston

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
• Citation: Preston v. Preston, 128 A. 292, 102 Conn. 96 (Conn. 1925)
• Decision Date: 23 February 1925
• Parties: Preston v. Preston ET UX.

128 A. 292

102 Conn. 96

Preston v. Preston ET UX.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 23, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.

Action by Dorothea C. Preston against Edward W. Preston and wife Cornelia L. H. Preston, to set aside a certain trust deed made by her to the defendant Cornelia L. H. Preston, and for an accounting by the defendant Edward W. Preston as testamentary trustee under two certain wills and as trustee of a certain trust inter vivos, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and referred to a state referee. The court accepted the report of the referee and rendered judgment for plaintiff on the fourth count of the complaint and for defendants upon the other counts; both plaintiff and defendants appeal. Error on plaintiff's appeal; no error on defendants' appeal.

In the matter of final settlement of testamentary trusts, the jurisdiction of court of probate is not exclusive, but is concurrent with that of ordinary courts of equity notwithstanding statute enlarging jurisdiction of probate court.

The complaint in this action contains four counts. The first count alleges that the defendant Edward W. Preston is trustee under the will of Elizabeth W. Preston, grandmother of the plaintiff; that plaintiff has certain interest in the trust created in this will, and that the trustee has refused to account in respect to this trust. The second count alleges that the defendant last named is trustee under the will of Bennett S. Preston, grandfather of the plaintiff; that plaintiff has certain interests in the trusts created by this will, and that the trustee has refused to account in respect to this trust. The third count is based upon a trust inter vivos created by Agnes H. Preston, a great-aunt of the plaintiff by marriage, in which defendant Edward W. Preston is named trustee and under which he has acted as such, in which trust plaintiff has an interest, and in respect to which the trustee has refused to account. The fourth count sets up the execution of a trust deed given by plaintiff to the defendant Cornelia L. H. Preston, as trustee, which deed plaintiff alleges was procured from her by undue influence and intimidation, and claims that the same be set aside and declared void.

The referee finds certain facts alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer of the defendants to be true. These may be summarized as follows:

As respects the first count: Elizabeth W. Preston died in March 1894, leaving a will duly proved, in which one-half of her estate is given to Edward W. Preston as trustee to pay over the income to Charles L. Preston (son of the testatrix and father of plaintiff), and after his death to pay two-thirds of the income to the son's children until the youngest of them attains the age of 21 years, when this two-thirds of the principal of the fund is to be divided among his son's children. The income of one-third of the fund is to be paid to the widow for life, and at her death the principal thereof is to be divided among the aforesaid children. In the event of no child of the son attaining majority, or of no living descendants of any child surviving, the estate goes in remainder to Edward W. Preston. The latter accepted the trust and is now acting as trustee. He has collected all the income from the trust fund.

As respects the second count: Bennett S. Preston died in 1899 leaving a will, which was duly proved, in which he devised to his son the defendant Edward W. Preston, a house and lot in Woodbury to be held in trust for his son Charles L. Preston, who was to receive the use, income, and profits thereof for life, then to pay to his widow, if any there should be, and to the children of Charles in common, and that upon the decease of the widow the trust should terminate and the real property vest in fee in his surviving children. A third of the remainder of testator's estate is given to Edward W. Preston in trust, to pay the income of the same to Charles L. Preston for life, and at his decease two-thirds of the income is to be paid to his children until the youngest attains the age of 21, when the principal fund is to be divided equally among his children then living; the other third of income is to be paid to the widow of Charles for her life, and at her death the principal fund is to be divided equally among the children of Charles. Edward W. Preston accepted the trust under the will and is now acting as trustee. Charles L. Preston died in 1902 leaving a widow, Lulu Preston, and four children, Carl, Elizabeth, Margaret B., and Dorothea C., the plaintiff. Margaret B. died in 1918, and the defendant Cornelia L. H. Preston was appointed administratrix of her estate. Dorothea C. Preston, the plaintiff, became 21 years of age. Edward W. Preston trustee has collected all of the income from the trust fund.

As respects the third count: Agnes H. Preston in 1916, while in full life, transferred by an instrument in writing, conveyed certain real and personal property to the defendant Edward W. Preston in trust for various purposes, among them to pay at her death $2,000 to the plaintiff. Agnes H. Preston died in 1917. The defendant trustee at her death had in his hands sufficient trust property to carry out all of the provisions of the trust.

As respects the fourth count: On February 8, 1918, the plaintiff became of age. On or about the last-named day plaintiff was a student nurse in the Bridgeport hospital and legally resident with the defendants. Allegations not admitted, but denied, in this count, are as follows:

" (4) On February 24, 1919, the defendants, through undue influence and intimidation, induced the plaintiff to sign a certain so-called trust agreement dated February 24, 1919, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked ‘ Exhibit C.’

(5) The plaintiff did not read said alleged trust agreement, nor did she understand the nature and consequences of said alleged trust agreement.

(6) Said alleged trust agreement is inequitable, was obtained from the plaintiff through fear of the documents (defendants), and the plaintiff, being unaccustomed to legal documents of any kind, did not understand what she was directed by the defendants to sign."

The trust agreement above referred to is printed in the footnote.^[1]

The various allegations in the above counts not admitted by defendants' answer are covered by findings of the referee in substance as hereafter stated.

Lulu Preston, mother of plaintiff, has been absent from her last known home in this state and has been unheard of for 17 years last past.

The securities in the trust fund created in the will of Elizabeth W. Preston were in the appraisal of the estate returned to the court of probate valued at $28,549.88. The securities in the trust fund created in the will of Bennett S. Preston were in the appraisal thereof returned to the court of probate valued at $17,429.31. The plaintiff had a brother, Carl, and two sisters, Elizabeth and Margaret, each of whom had an interest equal to that of the plaintiff, in the trusts created by Elizabeth W. Preston, and Bennett S. Preston, and Agnes H. Preston, described in the complaint.

Edward W. Preston, the defendant, was an uncle of the plaintiff, and he and his wife legally adopted the plaintiff and her two sisters, Elizabeth and Margaret, on October 14, 1904. When the plaintiff was about nine years old, her adopted parents sent her away to school, and kept her in various boarding schools until she had completed the third year of high school study, and in September, 1918, the defendants had her enrolled as a student nurse in the St. Vincent Hospital in Bridgeport, from which she graduated and is now practicing in the city of New York as a nurse. The plaintiff passed all her vacations when at schools and her spare time when at the hospital with her adopted parents at their home in the town of Roxbury or at the Hotel Stratfield in the city of Bridgeport.

Very shortly after the plaintiff became 21 years of age, her adopted mother told her it would be advisable that she make a trust agreement regarding her property, to which plaintiff made no objection. The defendants procured a trust agreement to be prepared, which was shown to the plaintiff, who asked who would be the trustee if her mother died and suggested that her adopted brother be trustee in that event. The defendants had the trust agreement rewritten making the change as to trustee, and Cornelia L. H. Preston telephoned to the plaintiff to come and execute it. The plaintiff responded and met the defendants at the Hotel Stratfield and accompanied them to the office of Mr. Huntington, a notary public, who read the trust agreement in the presence and hearing of the parties and indicated the place for their signatures, and the plaintiff and Cornelia L. H. Preston signed their names thereto, and a copy thereof was given to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence a letter from plaintiff's adopted mother, written on the letter head of the Hotel Stratfield, dated and mailed December 29, 1923, reading as follows:

" Dear Dorothea: I hear you are trying to break a trust which was made for your benefit. I do not think you understand what it involves. I am already paying you more than the income from the trust and shall pay my expenses of this trial from the principal of the trust in defending it. I want you to come and see me at this address, Room 326, on New Year's Day, January first. There will be no lawyer present. I am asking this of you as your mother because I have your interest at heart and because it is for your best good. Cornelia L. H. Preston. December twenty-ninth."

Edward W. Preston has made no report to the court of Probate as trustee of the...