In re the Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.

24 A.D.2d 744, 263 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3285

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 744 (In re the Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Accounting of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 24 A.D.2d 744, 263 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 20, 1965, appointing a Referee, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the matter ordered to proceed in accordance with the conclusion hereinafter set forth, with $30 costs and disbursements to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the fund. Matter of Bauer (14 N Y 2d 272) and Matter of Pratt (5 A D 2d 501, affd. 8 N Y 2d 855) make clear that the validity of the exercise of the power of appointment is governed by New York law, notwithstanding that the settlor may have died a foreign domiciliary. Accordingly a reference to determine domicile serves no purpose. Nor is a reference needed to ascertain whether the settlor created a reversionary interest in herself, for “the solution of the problem presented is dependent upon the intention of the settlor as expressed in the trust agreement” (Richardson v. Richardson, 298 N. Y. 135, 138). Examination of the instant trust agreement persuades us that no reversion was reserved by the settlor, and accordingly it is concluded that the exercise of the power of appointment violated the rule against perpetuities and was therefore invalid. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on May 20, 1965, appointing a Referee, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the matter ordered to proceed in accordance with the conclusion hereinafter set forth, with $30 costs and disbursements to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the fund. Matter of Bauer (14 N Y 2d 272) and Matter of Pratt (5 A D 2d 501, affd. 8 N Y 2d 855) make clear that the validity of the exercise of the power of appointment is governed by New York law, notwithstanding that the settlor may have died a foreign domiciliary. Accordingly a reference to determine domicile serves no purpose. Nor is a reference needed to ascertain whether the settlor created a reversionary interest in herself, for “the solution of the problem presented is dependent upon the intention of the settlor as expressed in the trust agreement” (Richardson v. Richardson, 298 N. Y. 135, 138). Examination of the instant trust agreement persuades us that no reversion was reserved by the settlor, and accordingly it is concluded that the exercise of the power of appointment violated the rule against perpetuities and was therefore invalid. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 744, 263 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-morgan-guaranty-trust-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack