Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Ass'n
| Decision Date | 28 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 14564,14564 |
| Citation | 101 Cal.App.2d 449,225 P.2d 993 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN et al. v. SAN FRANCISCO ART ASS'N et al. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Cushing, Cullinan, Trowbridge, Duniway & Gorrill, San Francisco, for appellants.
Fred N. Howser, Atty. Gen., R. L. Chamberlain, Deputy Atty. Gen. (John J. Dailey, San Francisco, of counsel), for respondent Fred N. Howser.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment on the pleadings and from an order denying their motion to set aside the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, in an action for declaratory relief.
The complaint was brought by the trustees of the residuary trusts created by decree of final distribution in the Estate of James D. Phelan, and amended to join as plaintiffs the heirs of Phelan, against The San Francisco Art Association and the Attorney General of California, for a declaration of rights under a decree (set forth at length in the complaint) of partial distribution in that estate, rendered July 23, 1931, which distributed certain real property and the sum of $250,000 to the art association in trust.
The trust was expressed by the decree in these words:
These dispositive provisions are silent as to any reversionary interest in the property but in the recitals of the decree appears a copy of that portion of Phelan's will which provided for this trust and concluded with these words: 'If this gift shall not be accepted by The San Francisco Art Association, the entire property shall go to my trustees herein named as a part of the residue of my estate.' The decree also recites that the art association had petitioned for a decree distributing to it the property devised and bequeathed unto it under the terms of the will.
The complaint then alleges the exchange of certain parcels of land between the art association and Noel Sullivan, and that the association has been in the full use and enjoyment of the real property received by it under the decree until the exchange, and, ever since then, of the property held by it after the exchange; and during all of that time has had full use and enjoyment of the money received under the decree.
Upon information and belief the complaint alleges that on May 14, 1931, the board of directors of the art association adopted a resolution which purported to accept the real property and the money upon the trust declared in the will; that in taking such action the association mistakenly believed that sum would be sufficient to make the trust effective, and acting upon such belief passed the resolution and received possession of the property; that ever since then the association has been seeking to make the trust effective but the income from the money has proved in practice to be entirely insufficient to make said trust purposes or any of them effective; that the association in so accepting believed it would be possible to obtain additional income from private sources to fulfill the terms of the trust, but it has been entirely impossible to obtain any substantial additional income for such purposes; that it is entirely impossible for the association to continue any longer to attempt to perform the terms of said charitable trust; and, therefore, none of the provisions of the trust are being performed and this charitable trust has entirely failed and is not being administered as provided by the will or in accordance with the decree.
Next, it is alleged the decree of final distribution rendered January 19, 1933, distributed to the trustees for the residuary beneficiaries the entire rest, residue and remainder of the estate of Phelan, specifically including all right, title and interest remaining in the estate to the property given by the will in trust to the art association; also, all right, title and interest of the estate therein by reason of nonacceptance of the trust or existing or arising if the objects of the trust are or become impossible or unlawful or arising out of any failure of the trust for any reason.
It is then alleged that the People of the State of California, acting through the attorney general, claim some right, title and interest in the property by reason of the alleged charitable character of the trust, but that such claim is without any right or foundation in law.
Finally, the complaint alleges that an actual substantial controversy has arisen between the plaintiffs and the art association (1) as to whether there has been a substantial violation of the terms and conditions set forth in the 1931 decree of partial distribution sufficient to have the court declare that the trust has completely failed, and (2) whether, assuming there has been a complete failure of the trust, the plaintiffs who are trustees of the residuary trusts or the plaintiffs who are heirs of Phelan are entitled to have the property conveyed to them free and clear of all claims of the art association and the People of the State of California; and prays for judgment declaring and determining that the trust has wholly failed and whether in such event the property should be conveyed to the heirs or to the residuary trustees, and that the defendants have no interest in the property.
Each defendant filed its answer to the complaint and then, upon motion of the attorney general, the trial court rendered judgment on the pleadings against the plaintiffs, dismissing the action. The judgment is silent as to the reasons for it, but the notice of motion declares that the complaint raises no issue for determination by the court, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, lacks any allegation showing the basis for any right, title, claim or interest of any kind in the trust properties or purposes, and shows on its face that the plaintiffs do not and cannot have a right, title, claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co.
...486--487, 322 P.2d 592; Sattinger v. Newbauer (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 365, 369--370, 266 P.2d 586; and Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Assn. (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 449, 456, 225 P.2d 993.) Inadequacy of other Respondents urge that the lower courts ruling should be upheld as a proper exercise of ......
-
Berkeley v. Alameda County Bd. of Supervisors
...action suit by dismissal (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed 1971) Pleading, § 730, pp. 2350--2351; Sullivan v. San Francisco Art. Assn., 101 Cal.App.2d 449, 455, 225 P.2d 993), if the plaintiff plead an actual Respondents did not demur to appellants' cause of action, nor did they move for dis......
-
Sandler v. Casale
...and duties of the parties, ... such relief is proper." (26 Cal.Jur.3d, Declaratory Relief, § 19, p. 41; see Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Assn., 101 Cal.App.2d 449, 225 P.2d 993; Talcott v. Talcott, 54 Cal.App.2d 743, 129 P.2d 946; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 9 Cal.App.2d 182, 49 P.2d 296; see also......
-
Condor Ins. Co. v. Williamsburg Nat. Ins. Co.
...to a favorable declaration." (Bennett v. Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 549, 305 P.2d 20; see also Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Assn. (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 449, 455, 225 P.2d 993 ["For that is what a declaratory relief action is about, to determine and declare the respective rights an......
-
Avoiding a Will Contest - the Impossible Dream?
...dismissed in part, 124 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio 1953); 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 127 (2000). 150. See Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Ass'n, 225 P.2d 993, 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950); Spaulding v. Hotchkiss, 56 N.Y.S.2d 168, 172 (1945); Sessions v. Skelton, 127 N.E.2 378, 384 (Ohio 1955); 26 C.J......
-
Avoiding a Will Contest - the Impossible Dream?
...dismissed in part, 124 N.E.2d 493 (Ohio 1953); 26 C.J.S. Declaratory Judgments § 127 (2000). 150. See Sullivan v. San Francisco Art Ass'n, 225 P.2d 993, 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950); Spaulding v. Hotchkiss, 56 N.Y.S.2d 168, 172 (1945); Sessions v. Skelton, 127 N.E.2 378, 384 (Ohio 1955); 26 C.J......