Starling v. Taylor, No. 68SC43
| Docket Nº | No. 68SC43 |
| Citation | 161 S.E.2d 204, 1 N.C.App. 287 |
| Case Date | May 22, 1968 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 204
Bank & Trust Company, Successor Trustees under an
agreement with B. F. Page,
v.
Elizabeth Page TAYLOR and husband, Melvin B. Taylor, Frank
Page Taylor and wife, Linda Tart Taylor, Helen Page Gaither
and husband, John G. Gaither, Betty Page Gaither Halter and
husband Gerald William Halter, Margaret Page Gaither and
Wright T. Dixon, Jr., Guardian Ad Litem for Sue Page Taylor,
a minor, John B. Gaither, Jr., a minor, Mary Helen Gaither,
a minor, William Wiley Gaither, II, a minor, Frank Page
Taylor, Jr., a minor, and such other unknown or unborn
person who may be interested in the said Trust Estate.
Joyner & Howison, Raleigh, for plaintiff appellees.
Lassiter, Leager & Walker, Raleigh, for Elizabeth Page Taylor and Helen Page Gaither, appellees.
Bailey, Dixon & Wooten, Raleigh, for Wright T. Dixon, Jr., Guardian Ad Litem, appellant.
MORRIS, Judge.
Although portions of the original trust indenture are set out in the facts, the indenture itself is not before the Court for construction. We, therefore, consider it only as the instruments before us for construction relate to it.
We must first determine what legal effect, if any, is to be given to the memorandum of agreement executed on 23 December 1946, purporting to extend the original trust indenture for 10 years beyond its stated date of termination. It is clear that the extension of a trust beyond its stated duration amounts to a modification. The rules generally applicable to modifications are, therefore, applicable here.
Since the trust indenture contained no provision for revocation, it is an irrevocable trust. 3 Scott, Trusts 2d, § 330.1, p. 2394.
Obviously, the settlor here recognized the general rule that, having created an irrevocable Inter vivos trust devoid of any provisions with respect to modification, he was without power to modify the trust. 3 Scott, Trusts 2d, § 331, pp. 2413--2414.
In City of Washington v. Ellsworth, 253 N.C. 25, 116 S.E.2d 167, our Supreme Court refused to allow validity to an instrument seeking [1 N.C.App. 290] to modify a trust agreement. One of the contentions of the appellees was that since the settlor reserved the right 'to sell or dispose' of the property held in trust with the written consent of persons named in the instrument, she had the right to convey it to those persons who would have taken under the purported modification, and the purported modification shoud be construed as a deed to them. The Court in speaking to this proposition said:
'The original instrument contained no provision reserving the right to revoke or modify the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulk & Needham, Inc. v. United States, No. C-80-WS-66.
...impels, to close a trust and distribute the assets thereof sooner than was contemplated by the trustor * * *." See, Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 But the court has indicated that an "active" trust cannot be destroyed by an agreement between the beneficiaries. In Cole v.......
-
Baxter v. Jones, No. 7227SC38
...Trust Co. v. Taylor, 255 N.C. 122, 120 S.E.2d 588 (1961); Finch v. Honeycutt, 246 N.C. 91, 97 S.E.2d 478 (1957); and Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 In the case of Callaham v. Newsom, 251 N.C. 146, 110 S.E.2d 802 (1959), the Supreme Court said: 'When called upon to interp......
-
Heffner's Estate, Matter of, No. 8218SC468
...terminated upon her death. The will of the mother lacks any language to create a testamentary trust. As detailed in Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 291, 161 S.E.2d 204, 207 (1968), a testamentary trust must "(1) sufficient words to raise a trust, (2) a definite subject or trust, res, an......
-
Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N.A. v. Sevier, No. 7821SC859
...an indefeasibly vested interest in the trust estate. Smyth v. McKissick, 222 N.C. 644, 24 S.E.2d 621 (1943); Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 (1968). In this case, effective consent to the termination of the trust may not be given at this time by the settlor's children and......
-
Fulk & Needham, Inc. v. United States, C-80-WS-66.
...impels, to close a trust and distribute the assets thereof sooner than was contemplated by the trustor * * *." See, Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 But the court has indicated that an "active" trust cannot be destroyed by an agreement between the beneficiaries. In Cole v.......
-
Baxter v. Jones, 7227SC38
...Trust Co. v. Taylor, 255 N.C. 122, 120 S.E.2d 588 (1961); Finch v. Honeycutt, 246 N.C. 91, 97 S.E.2d 478 (1957); and Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 In the case of Callaham v. Newsom, 251 N.C. 146, 110 S.E.2d 802 (1959), the Supreme Court said: 'When called upon to interp......
-
Heffner's Estate, Matter of, 8218SC468
...terminated upon her death. The will of the mother lacks any language to create a testamentary trust. As detailed in Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 291, 161 S.E.2d 204, 207 (1968), a testamentary trust must "(1) sufficient words to raise a trust, (2) a definite subject or trust, res, an......
-
Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N.A. v. Sevier, 7821SC859
...an indefeasibly vested interest in the trust estate. Smyth v. McKissick, 222 N.C. 644, 24 S.E.2d 621 (1943); Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C.App. 287, 161 S.E.2d 204 (1968). In this case, effective consent to the termination of the trust may not be given at this time by the settlor's children and......