England v. Decker

441 Mass. 1013
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 20, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 Mass. 1013 (England v. Decker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
England v. Decker, 441 Mass. 1013 (Mass. 2004).

Opinion

A single justice of this court has reserved and reported this case to the full court. The trustees seek to reform the Frederick J. England Family Trust by dividing “Trust B” into two separate trusts, a generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exempt trust and a GST tax nonexempt trust, in order to minimize Federal GST taxes and administration expenses.4 We have previously allowed reformations of this type. See Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Kahn, 438 Mass. 1004 (2002); Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Marquis, 437 Mass. 1010 (2002); Fleet Nat'l Bank v. Mackey, 433 Mass. 1009 (2001).

After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that the proposed [1014]*1014reform promotes the settlor’s intent and should be allowed as a matter of Massachusetts law. The language of the trust reveals that the settlor was tax conscious, and there is no provision prohibiting such a division of the trust. The proposed division will not affect the dispositive terms of the trust nor will it alter any beneficial interests. This type of trust reform is minimal and constitutes only a “fine tuning of the administration of the trustf] ... in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the application of the GST tax.” BankBoston v. Marlow, 428 Mass. 283, 286 (1998), quoting First Agric. Bank v. Coxe, 406 Mass. 879, 883 n.6 (1990).

Jeffrey P. Hart, John D. Stuebing, & Karen L. McKenna, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.

A judgment shall be entered in the county court authorizing the plaintiffs to divide and administer “Trust B” as requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint’s prayer for relief.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Inderieden v. Downs
445 Mass. 1011 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
441 Mass. 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/england-v-decker-mass-2004.