In re the Estate of Rosenthal

155 Misc. 295, 279 N.Y.S. 692, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1175
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 155 Misc. 295 (In re the Estate of Rosenthal) 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 Rosenthal, 155 Misc. 295, 279 N.Y.S. 692, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1175 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Opinion

Foley, S.

This is an application for a construction of the will. By article fifth of his will the testator created a trust of his residuary estate for the benefit of his .widow during her life. The will further provides for a diversion of a portion of the income of the trust to the testator’s two children in the event that the widow should remarry. On the death of the widow, the trust is to continue for the benefit of the two children. The son is to receive one-half of the principal in installments upon arriving at specified ages. The daughter’s one-half share of the principal is to continue in the trust during her life.

This article of the will contains the following provision for an invasion of the principal of the trust created for the benefit of the widow: “ I further hereby direct my said Trustees at the written request of my said wife but not otherwise to encroach on the principal of the said trust fund to the aggregate extent of not more than one-tenth thereof prior to the date when the elder of my said two children or the survivor of them shall attain the age of twenty-one years and to the aggregate extent of not more than one-half thereof [297]*297(including prior encroachments) after the elder of my said two children or the survivor of them shall attain the age of twenty-one years for the education, support, care or other purposes of said children.”

The testator’s elder child is now seventeen years old. On March 9, 1934, the widow made a written request for an encroachment on the principal of the estate to the extent of ten per cent thereof.

A determination is now sought as to the amount of principal which may now be withdrawn from the trust and the method of expending the amount withdrawn.

The widow has taken the position that upon her written demand there must be immediately withdrawn from the principal of the trust the amount she specifies. She also seeks to exclusively control the expenditure of the portion of principal withdrawn. To increase the amount of principal which she claims may now be withdrawn from the trust, the widow attempts to date back her demand for a ten per cent encroachment to the time of some oral request when the trust estate had a much greater value. She has evidenced an intention to withdraw from the trust as soon as possible the maximum amount permitted by the will regardless of whether or not such an amount is necessary for the support and education of the children. Such action would be prejudicial to the rights of the children and the contingent remaindermen and would divert the principal of the trust from the purpose intended by the testator. No such procedure will be permitted by the court.

The language of the will makes the widow the sole arbiter as to whether or not the principal should be invaded and the extent of the invasion. The language employed, however, does not contemplate an immediate severance from the trust of the amount of principal specified by the widow and its expenditure by her. The will contemplates a gradual expenditure of the principal over two distinct periods. During the shorter of these periods, until the elder child attains her majority, expenditures of principal to the aggregate extent of one-tenth thereof ” are permitted. Expenditures to the aggregate extent of an additional four-tenths of the principal are permitted after the elder child or the survivor of the children reaches twenty-one. The use of the phrase to the aggregate extent ” indicates that the testator intended a gradual expenditure of principal over the specified periods. This intention is further evidenced by the fact that the percentage invasions of the principal permitted during the two separate periods are in proportion to the duration of the periods.

While the language permitting the invasion of principal does not particularly provide that the trustees are to apply the fund to the [298]*298support and education of the children, the general context of the will and the specific language in the same article preceding this clause disclose that such was the testator’s intention. The will provides that should the widow remarry she is to receive only $10,000 annually from the trust income and that the balance shall be used and applied by my said Trustees in their discretion for the education, support and maintenance of my two children.” As the invasion of the principal is limited to the same purposes, the above quoted language must be held to apply to the expenditure of that part of the principal withdrawn from the trust. The use of the word “ apply ” has been construed to confer on a trustee a discretionary power to apply the principal or the income of a fund under his control directly to the support or education of designated persons. (Matter of Flood, 127 Misc. 797; affd., 216 App. Div. 711; affd., 243 N. Y. 598; New York Trust Company v. Black, 178 App. Div. 4; affd. 223 N. Y. 703; Matter of Quinlan, 147 Misc. 483; Matter of Connolly, 71 id. 388.)

The authority to apply the funds and the limitation on the purpose of the application cast a direct responsibility upon the trustees. The peculiar language of this will is, therefore, distinguishable from testamentary directions construed in other cases where the trustee is authorized to “ pay ” over the income. Under these cases no responsibility is placed upon the trustee to see that the income is properly expended. His payment of the income to the general guardian of the infant, for example, is a sufficient discharge of his duty, and the direct responsibility for the proper application of the funds to the support of the infant is placed upon the general guardian.

It is the duty of the trustees here to apply the principal earmarked for expenditure to the support of the children. In her individual capacity the widow has no control over the actual expenditure of the principal. As a trustee she has a duty which to to be performed in co-operation with her cotrustees. The power of the trustees to expend the principal for the support of the children to not absolute or arbitrary and its exercise calls for sound discretion on the part of the trustees. (Matter of Wilkin, 183 N. Y. 104; Matter of White, 135 Misc. 377; Matter of Brown, 155 id. 620.) General responsibility for the proper application of the funds is imposed, in order to avoid improper diversion or bad faith. The trustees must subsequently account for all expenditures out of encroachments upon principal. (Matter of Flood, 127 Misc. 797; affd., 216 App. Div. 711; affd., 243 N. Y. 598.)

As it has been established to my satisfaction that the widow has personally expended sums in excess of ten per cent of the principal of the trust for the support of the children, the trustees may [299]*299now pay her ten per cent of the principal as reimbursement in full for the moneys expended by her. The percentage is to be based upon the value of the fund as of the date of the written demand. Counsel for the widow argues that the percentage should be based upon the original inventory value of the trust fund. The terms of the will negative that contention. If his contention was correct, and if there was a shrinkage in the value of the assets, by more than one-half, it would be possible by the demands for withdrawal by the widow to destroy the entire fund. Thereby the future gifts contained in the will to the children or to the remaindermen would be nullified. The purpose of the testator to make value at the time of the demand as a basis for computation is, therefore, obvious.

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

Related

In re Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.
36 Misc. 2d 978 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of van Hogendorp
36 Misc. 2d 814 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of Mueller
34 Misc. 2d 584 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of Stern
32 Misc. 2d 445 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)
In re the Estate of Bouverie
22 Misc. 2d 701 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1960)
In re the Estate of Fuchs
10 Misc. 2d 997 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1957)
In re the Accounting of McConnell
9 Misc. 2d 1019 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1957)
In re the Accounting of Venino
10 Misc. 2d 209 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1957)
In re the Estate of de Acosta
8 Misc. 2d 46 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1957)
In re the Estate of Jacob
165 Misc. 280 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 Misc. 295, 279 N.Y.S. 692, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rosenthal-nysurct-1935.