O'Neill Trust

23 Pa. D. & C.2d 193, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 187
CourtPennsylvania Orphans' Court, Allegheny County
DecidedNovember 1, 1960
Docketno. 5311 of 1942
StatusPublished

This text of 23 Pa. D. & C.2d 193 (O'Neill Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Allegheny County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Neill Trust, 23 Pa. D. & C.2d 193, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 187 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960).

Opinion

Boyle, P. J.,

In the audit of the fourth account of testamentary trustees, after hearing testimony on the exceptions filed by the executors of Emily O’Neill Stebbins, a deceased life tenant entitled to two fifths of the income, the court entered a- decree of distribution disposing of some of the questions raised and reserving the claims of the estate of said life tenant for apportionment of stock dividends of three corporations: National City Bank of New York, the First National Bank of Boston and the Insurance Company of North America.

At the time of the payment of each of the three stock dividends now to be apportioned, each corporation charged earnings with the par value of the stock distributed.- The^ apportionment questions already set-[194]*194tied in the decree involved shares of Harbison-Walker, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Company, and Socony-Mobil Corporation wherein the rule of the New York Stock Exchange for listed stocks was followed and earnings were charged with the fair market value of the shares distributed. One of the questions to be decided in adjudicating the present claims for apportionment is whether the number of shares of a stock dividend distributable as income shall be limited to the dollar amount of earnings actually capitalized.

It is conceded that each of the stock dividends involved constitutes an apportionable event.

1. The Shares of National City Bank of New York.

The trustees purchased shares of stock of the National City Bank of New York as follows:

200 shares on January 8, 1949 .... $ 7,733.38

150 shares on March 1, 1950 ....... 7,194.74

50 shares on May 25,1951 ........ 2,000.00

Total 400 shares Total Purchase Price $16,928.12

On February 16, 1953, a stock dividend of 16.67 shares was declared. To support the dividend, the bank capitalized earnings in the amount of the par value of the stock distributed.

In Harvey Estate, 395 Pa. 62, 67, 68, the Supreme Court restated the Pennsylvania rule of apportionment and the formula used to apply the rule in the following language:

“. . . In substance, the Rule provides that, upon the happening of an apportionable event, a life tenant is entitled to receive profits and earnings of the corporation accumulated and undistributed since the settlor’s death or the trust’s acquisition of the stock, so long as the intact value of the trust principal to be preserved for the remainderman is not impaired: Earp’s Appeal, 28 Pa. 368. The formula used to apply this Rule may be described briefly in the following steps: (1) the in[195]*195tact value of the stock held by the trustee on which the stock distribution was made must be determined;4 (2) the intact value must be divided by a value per share assigned at the time of the apportionable event to determine the number of shares which must be retained to protect the intact value;5 (3) if intact value is protected, and additional shares remain, the dollar amount to which the life tenant is entitled must be determined, that is the amount of earnings accumulated and undistributed by the corporation since the acquisition of the stock by the trust or the death of the settlor; (4) the value per share to be divided into this amount must then be ascertained to determine the number of shares to which the life tenant is entitled; (5) any shares remaining after this calculation are retained in principal. It is readily apparent from an examination of the Rule that its purported equitable propensities are governed entirely by the values that are assigned to determine intact value, the value per share used to preserve intact value, and the value per share used to distribute the accumulated earnings to the life tenant.”

The decided cases have not restricted the life tenant to earnings actually capitalized. The courts have looked to the protection of intact value, as adjusted by capital increases and losses, as the first restriction and then to the ascertainment of whether the stock dividend represented earnings accruing from the time of the acquisition of the stock or the settlor’s death and undistributed to the date of the dividend: Arrott [196]*196Estate, 383 Pa. 228, 230-32; Steele Estate, 377 Pa. 250, 253; Barnes’ Estate, 338 Pa. 555, 559-60; Hostetter’s Trust, 319 Pa. 572, 575; Waterhouse’s Estate, 308 Pa. 422, 430; 106 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 157, 159. See Trimble Estate, 106 Pitts. L. J. 441, 467-76.

The auditing judge holds that the formula of apportionment as defined in Harvey Estate, 395 Pa. 62, 67, 68, does not intend or require that the number of shares to be apportioned to. the life tenant be restricted by the amount of earnings actually capitalized to support the stock dividend. If such a restriction were applied, it would result in the inequity which the Pennsylvania rule of apportionment is intended to prevent. There is no reference in the apportionment formula to earnings actually capitalized nor to any ratio of earnings to total par value. It has been held that an income beneficiary may share in earnings which are not capitalized as where rights to subscribe to stock are issued: Hostetter’s Trust, supra.

As appears above, the cost of the 400 shares of stock of the National City Bank of New York was $16,-928.12. Cost price is the intact value required to be preserved for the remaindermen when the shares are purchased by the trustee after the settlor’s death: Arrott Estate, supra, 233, 236.

The court must next determine whether an award of the stock dividend to the income beneficiaries would result in an impairment of the.intact value which we are required to preserve for the remaindermen. With what value at the time of the declaration of the stock dividend do we compare intact value in order to provide the answer to this question? Is it market value as the exceptant suggests (see 106 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 161, 212) or is it the book value of the shares at the dividend date which should apply? In resolving this question, it has been the practice.to use the book value of [197]*197the shares at the dividend date: Bullitt’s Estate, 308 Pa. 413, 420, 421.

It is conceded that the hook value of the shares at dividend date is $51.61 per share. When this value per share is divided into the cost intact value of $16,-928.12, we ascertain that 328 shares of the stock are needed to preserve the intact value. All the dividend shares could be awarded to income without impairment of corpus.

The next step is to determine the dollar amount to which the life tenants are entitled, i.e., the amount of earnings accumulated and undistributed by the corporation since the acquisition of the stock by the trust. When the total number of 416.67 shares involved is multiplied by the book value of $51.61 per share on the dividend date, the product is a total book value of $21,504.84. The original book value, $48.12 per share, is $19,248.59, plus an agreed capital gain adjustment of $2.77 per share or $1,111.11. This results in a total adjusted original book value of $20,352.70. The subtraction of the adjusted original book value of $20,-352.70 from the book value, $21,504.84, on the dividend date results in a remainder of $1,152.14, which is the amount by which earnings have increased the value of the trust.

When the said sum of $1,152.14 is divided by the book value per share, $51.61, at dividend date, it appears that 22 shares equal retained earnings.

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

Related

Steele Estate
103 A.2d 409 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Arrott Estate
118 A.2d 187 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Harvey Estate
149 A.2d 104 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Hostetter's Trust
181 A. 567 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Bullitt's Estate
162 A. 288 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Barnes' Estate
12 A.2d 912 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Waterhouse's Estate
162 A. 295 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Earp's Appeal
28 Pa. 368 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Pa. D. & C.2d 193, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-trust-paorphctallegh-1960.