Harlan National Bank v. Brown

317 S.W.2d 903
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
DecidedDecember 12, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 317 S.W.2d 903 (Harlan National Bank v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harlan National Bank v. Brown, 317 S.W.2d 903 (Ky. 1958).

Opinion

WADDILL, Commissioner.

These actions, consolidated by agreement for trial in the Harlan Circuit Court, were instituted by the Harlan National Bank as executor and trustee under the will of C. V. Bennett, deceased, seeking the judicial interpretation of the will and advice concerning its duties thereunder. Subsequent pleadings raised issues involving the will of Bennett’s widow, Charlotte Bennett Chapman, who died testate after her marriage to William L. Chapman.

Four issues are presented for determination: The first issue is whether or not Paragraphs IV, V, and VI of C. V. Bennett’s will are void for indefiniteness; the second issue concerns the number of shares of V & C Coal Company common stock to be distributed between Trust A and Trust B under Paragraphs IV, V, and VI; the third issue is whether the Harlan National Bank has the authority to vote the stock of the V & C Coal Company contained in Trust B which was created by Paragraph V; and the final issue involves the ownership. of two shares of stock now held by John A. Brown.

C. V. Bennett died testate July 14, 1953, and his will, consisting of ten numbered paragraphs, was probated in the Harlan-County Court August 12, 1953. He was survived by his third wife Charlotte Bennett, by whom he had no children; by two children by his first and deceased wife; and by four children by his divorced second wife.

The first and second issues arise under Paragraphs IV, V and VI -of the will of C. V. Bennett which read:

“Paragraph IV”
Trust A
“Subject to my wife surviving me, I give, devise and bequeath one-half (½) of the residue of my estate to Harlan National Bank, Trust Department, Harlan, Kentucky, Trustee, for the following uses and purposes: * *
. (This trust wás for the benefit of Charlotte Bennett for life, and it gave . her testamentary power of ap *905 pointment of the corpus. For the complete will of C. V. Bennett, see appendix.)
“Paragraph V”
Trust B
“I give, devise and bequeath the other one-half (½) of the residue of my estate, not disposed of in Paragraph IV hereof, to Harlan National Bank, Trust Department, Harlan, Kentucky, Trustee, who shall divide the trust estate hereby created into as many separate and equal shares as may be necessary to provide one share for the benefit of each of my children then living, and one share for the benefit of the then living descendants of any deceased child per stirpes, and said shares shall thenceforth be held by my trustee for the following uses and purposes: * * ⅜»
(For the complete will of C. V. Bennett, see appendix.)
“Paragraph VI”
“In dividing the residue of my estate into two equal parts for the purpose of setting up Trust A and Trust B, there shall be set up and included as a part of the corpus of Trust A only seven hundred and fifty (750) shares of the common stock of the V & C Coal Company owned by me at the time of my death, the remainder of such stock owned by me to constitute a part of Fund B.”

We consider the first question of whether or not Paragraphs IV, V and VI of the will are void for uncertainty. This issue was raised by William L. Chapman who was permitted to intervene in these actions in the circuit court. The events giving rise to Chapman’s claim are these. On December 21, 1954, Charlotte Bennett executed her will. Therein she exercised the power to appoint the corpus of Trust A as follows:

“All property over which I may have a power to appoint at the time of my death, either by will or otherwise I hereby appoint to my estate to' be distributed in accordance with the provisions of this will. Any reference to property herein shall include such appointed property.”

She then bequeathed the V & C Stock and certain other properties to John A. Brown in trust for the benefit of her father, Jasper Dawn; her brother, William Dawn; and her sister, Thelma Ethel Padlo.

On December 22, 1954, the day after she executed her will, she married William L. Chapman. Upon being informed that her will had been partially revoked by her subsequent marriage, she executed a codicil to her will on March 18, 1955, by which she revived the provisions of her original will. William L. Chapman was not included as a beneficiary in her will, and was not added as a beneficiary by her codicil. She died March 28, 1955, while these actions pended for trial in the circuit court.

Chapman renounced his wife’s will in favor of his statutory rights in her estate under KRS 392.020. He seeks to include within her dowable estate not only her separate assets, but assets from the C. V. Bennett estate as well.

If the will of C. V. Bennett is valid, the trust assets over which Charlotte Bennett Chapman had the power to appoint by will did not become a part of her estate for the purpose of measuring Chapman’s dower rights. If, however, C. V. Bennett died intestate, one-half of his personal property would pass to Charlotte Bennett Chapman’s estate and would constitute a part of her estate for the purpose of determining Chapman’s dower rights under KRS 392.-020.

*906 To support his contention that Paragraphs IV, V and VI of Bennett’s will are void, Chapman relies upon the rule stated in Blankenship v. Blankenship, 276 Ky. 707, 124 S.W.2d 1060, 1062, that:

“If, from a will itself, it cannot be determined just what the testator’s intention was, then the will, or such part of it as may be so affected, is void for uncertainty.”

Chapman’s contention was rejected by the Chancellor. In pertinent part, the Chancellor’s opinion reads:

“The will of C. V. Bennett is valid and the property contained in the corpus of Trust A, created under the will, is not a part of the intestate property left by Charlotte Bennett Chapman within the meaning of Section 392.020 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. * * William Lincoln Chapman is not entitled to any dower rights in it. St. Matthews Bank v. De Charette, 259 Ky. 802, 83 S.W.2d 471 [99 A.L.R. 1146]; Ligget v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 274 Ky. 387, 118 S.W.2d 720.”

On January 16, 1956, judgment was entered in the Harlan Circuit Court which declared the will of C. V. Bennett valid. Chapman has prosecuted a cross-appeal from that part of the judgment upholding the validity of Bennett’s will.

This Court has concluded that Paragraphs IV, V and VI of Bennett’s will are not void because the meaning of each paragraph is ascertainable from the language used in the will.

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

Related

Houghland v. Lampton
33 S.W.3d 536 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2000)
Estate of Orphanos v. Commissioner
67 T.C. 780 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 S.W.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlan-national-bank-v-brown-kyctapphigh-1958.