In re the Estate of Edwards

183 Misc. 1014, 50 N.Y.S.2d 541
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedAugust 16, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 183 Misc. 1014 (In re the Estate of Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Edwards, 183 Misc. 1014, 50 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1944).

Opinion

Foley, S.

In the prior decision of the Surrogate herein, the question of the commissions of the trustees was reserved for determination upon the settlement of the decree. (Matter of Edwards, N. Y. L. J., April 6,1944, p. 1344, col. 2.) That question is now considered and disposed of.

The petitioners in this accounting proceeding are the surviving trustee and the executors of the estate of the deceased trustee. The trustees qualified and entered upon the administration of the trust on May 21,1934. The individual trustee died on July 15, 1942. Neither trustee has ever received any commission on principal.

Upon the settlement of the decree the petitioners submitted an amended computation of the commissions on principal, to which they claim to be entitled. They request: (a) for the surviving trustee, a principal receiving commission pursuant to section 285-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, as amended by chapter 138 of the Laws of 1944; (b) for the surviving trustee, the minimum principal commission under subdivision 3 of section 285-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act for distributing sums [1016]*1016for administration expenses; (e) compensation for the deceased trustee based upon a receiving commission computed under chapter 138 of the Laws of 1944 and a distribution commission under subdivision 3 of section 285-a upon sums paid out for administration expenses during his lifetime.

The principal assets of the trust have a value in excess of half a million dollars. The trust is a continuing one. Thus far there has been paid out of principal less than $8,000. This sum represents attorneys’ fees, taxes and other expenses -of administration.

(1) Pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 285-a, as amended by chapter 138 of the Laws of 1944, the surviving trustee is entitled to a commission for receiving the principal of the trust. This commission is correctly computed by the surviving trustee.

The decree to be entered herein must contain a provision expressly restraining the surviving trustee from withdrawing any annual principal commissions until the amount of annual principal commissions to which it otherwise would have been entitled for the period from September 1, 1943, shall equal the amount of principal commissions awarded under this decree. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 285-a, subd. 2.)

(2) The Surrogate holds that under the terms of subdivision 3 of section 285-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act there can be no allowance' to a trustee of any part of the minimum principal commission prior to the complete termination of the trust. The surviving trustee, therefore, is not entitled to receive any minimum principal commission on partial distributions of principal.

The enactment of section 285-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act (L. 1943, ch. 694) introduced a revolutionary change in the method of computing and paying principal commissions of trustees. (Matter of Hurlbut, 180 Misc. 681.) Instead of basing principal commissions on the 'value of the principal assets received and paid out, the new statute based the computation and withdrawal or award of principal commissions upon the amount of income collected annually by the trustee.

If these were the only provisions in the statute for the withdrawal of principal commissions, it is apparent that in a trust of short duration, the trustee would receive a much smaller compensation than he would have received under the former section 285 because his annual commissions must end when the trust terminates. His total principal commission might, therefore, aggregate no more than a few annual commissions. Hence, [1017]*1017the sponsors of the new legislation — the Trust Companies Association of the State of New York — advocated a provision which would guarantee them an absolute minimum principal commission in a substantial amount. That provision is con-Í ained in subdivision 3 of section 285-a and reads as follows: “A testamentary trustee who is acting at a time of distribution of principal shall be entitled to receive and may retain from principal as a minimum principal commission hereunder a sum by which the commissions from principal which he has theretofore at any time received is less than a sum equal to five per centum on the first two thousand dollars of principal distributed; two and one-half per centum on the next twenty thousand dollars thereof, and two per centum of the balance thereof. If such distribution is made within a period less than five years after the date of the trustee’s qualification, he shall be entitled to deceive a.minimum principal commission at one-half of such rates. In applying the above rates consideration shall be given to the total amount of any previous distributions of principal (Italics mine.)

The purpose, intent and scope of subdivision 3 of the statute are perfectly clear. We are left in no state of doubt as to the nature of this commission. It is not a “ paying commission ”. It is expressly characterized “asa minimum principal commission ”. (Italics supplied.) Having in mind the background of the former statute and the different method of computing and awarding principal commissions under the new section, the meaning of these words cannot be mistaken. It was intended by the Legislature to be the lowest amount of principal commissions to which the trustee was to be entitled for the complete administration of the entire capital of the trust. Moreover, the minimum commission is determined by the difference between the amount calculated at the specified rates and the total commissions from principal that the trustee has theretofore at any time received ”. (_Italics mine.) In other words, the minimum is only the least amount which he may expect and once he has passed that amount in the withdrawal of his commissions, he ceases to have any further right in the minimum principal commission.

The statute clearly states by reasonable inference that the minfmnm principal commission is payable only to a trustee who is acting at a time of “ final distribution ” of principal. The requisites of final distribution and completed administration of the trust are so implicit in every part of this subdivision that they cannot be ignored.

[1018]*1018In the first place the very concept of a “ minimum commission ” indicates that it is not subject to fixation until the complete administration of the trust. If that were not so, a trustee might obtain a payment on account of his minimum commission on a partial distribution and yet continue to administer the fund with annual withdrawals of commissions far in excess of the minimum. He would thus receive an extra award of a minimum and regular additional awards in excess of the minimum.

Moreover, the concluding sentence of the first paragraph of subdivision 3 further clarifies the interpretation that no part of the minimum commission is to be paid until the final termination of the entire trust. It provides that in applying the rates of the minimum commission 1 ‘ consideration shall be given to the total amount of any previous distributions of principal.” On the theory that the minimum is to be computed only upon the final and complete distribution of the trust assets, this sentence has a necessary and understandable place in the plan. Under any other interpretation of the statute, this sentence would be ’unnecessary and illogical.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Stephens
49 Misc. 2d 1003 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1966)
In re the Estate of Faroll
39 Misc. 2d 309 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1963)
In re the Accounting of Miller
189 Misc. 569 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1946)
In re the Estate of Zinn
188 Misc. 675 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1946)
In re the Accounting of Prophet
187 Misc. 156 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1946)
In re the Accounting of Dreyfus
188 Misc. 1030 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1945)
In re the Accounting of Tuckerman
186 Misc. 692 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
In re the Accounting of Boettger
184 Misc. 103 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1945)
In re the Estate of Ladew
183 Misc. 1020 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 Misc. 1014, 50 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-edwards-nysurct-1944.