Sykes Memorial Sch. Trustees v. Lieberman, No. 38931 (Nov. 15, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3679
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1990
DocketNo. 38931
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3679 (Sykes Memorial Sch. Trustees v. Lieberman, No. 38931 (Nov. 15, 1990)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sykes Memorial Sch. Trustees v. Lieberman, No. 38931 (Nov. 15, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3679 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs are the trustees of a charitable trust established in 1903 under Paragraph 4 of a codicil to the Last Will and Testament of George Sykes. Sykes bequeathed $100,000 in perpetual trust to five trustees and their successors to establish a training school for the instruction of boys in manual labor. The will reads as follows:

I give and bequeath to Francis T. Maxwell, William H. Prescott, Charles Phelps, David A. Sykes, and J. Henry McCray, all of the City of Rockville, County of Tolland, State of Connecticut, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in perpetual trust, to them and their successors in office, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining at said City of Rockville a manual training school for the instruction of boys in manual labor, including drafting, carpentering, plumbing, all kinds of electrical work, physical culture, and all other branches of manual training commonly taught in such schools. Said school shall be open to boys between the ages of ten and twenty-one years, who are resident of the Town of Vernon and of said City of Rockville, subject to such rules and regulations as to their qualifications for admission to said school as said trustees and their successors in office may CT Page 3680 establish from time to time.

Said trustees may add to the facilities and privileges afforded by said manual training school, such other facilities and privileges incidental and kindred thereto, as they may deem best from time to time, and as the funds of said school may warrant. Said trustees and their successors in office shall have power to purchase land and erect or purchase buildings for the purpose of carrying out the provision of this trust.

The general management and oversight of said school, including the system and plan training and course of studies to be pursued, shall be vested in said board of trustees and their successors in said office. Said board may elect a president, a vice-president, a secretary, and a treasurer, and such other executive officers as they may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this trust, including a superintendent and the instructor of said school.

All vacancies in said board, from any cause, shall be filled by appointment of the surviving trustees.

The board of trustees shall have power from time to time to make by-laws defining the duties of said officers, agents, superintendents and instructors, and the method of calling meetings of the trustees, and other by-laws relative to the management and government of said school and its affairs.

In case a greater number of boys shall apply for admission to said school than can be accommodated and instructed having reference to the funds in the hands of said trustees, a selection from said applicants shall be made by the board of trustees under such rules and regulations as to number to be admitted, and qualifications of the applicants, as they may prescribe.

The annual meeting of said board of trustees shall be held on the first Monday of January in each year, unless otherwise voted by two-thirds vote of said board of trustees, and any three of said trustees shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business in any meeting called, as CT Page 3681 may be provided in the by-laws.

In accordance with that directive, the trustees established a school in Rockville in 1924. At some point in time the facilities were leased to the Town of Vernon Board of Education for public school purposes. The board so utilized the building until 1984. The trustees then attempted to lease the property to others but there were no viable tenants. Meanwhile, the property was deteriorating and the costs of maintaining it were escalating. In 1985, the trustees had the real estate appraised by a licensed appraiser who determined that the fair market value was $85,000.00 on September 1, 1985. After obtaining probate court approval, the trustees listed the property for sale to the highest bidder and it was sold in August, 1986 for $180,000.00. The net proceeds were invested together with other accumulated trust funds managed by the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company. As of September 28, 1990, the value of the trust corpus was $1,383,794.00. The trust yields an annual income of about $80,000.00.

The trustees commenced this action for a declaratory judgment to determine how the corpus and/or income of the trust may now be used. The attorney general is a necessary party to this action as it is litigation involving a public trust. Lockwood v. Killian, 172 Conn. 496 (1977).

The Sykes trust is a charitable trust. The doctrine of approximation (modified "cy pres") applies to charitable trusts in situations where a testator has evidenced a dominant intent to devote his property to some charitable use, but the circumstances are such that it becomes impossible, impracticable or illegal to follow his wishes to the letter. The courts will then sanction the gift's use in some other way which approximates his general intention. Duncan v. Higgins, 129 Conn. 136, 140 (1942); Shannon v. Eno,120 Conn. 77, 86-87 (1935); Restatement Trusts 2d, Sec. 399 (1959). Our Supreme Court recognizes the doctrine of approximation (see, for example, Lockwood v. Killian, supra.) and vests exclusively the Superior Court, as a court of equity, with the power to apply the doctrine. Second Ecclesiastical Society v. Attorney General, 133 Conn. 89,93-94 (1946).

In order for this Court to invoke the doctrine of approximation, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that it is either impossible and/or impractical to establish and run a separate school to train boys in industrial arts. See Seymour v. Attorney General, 124 Conn. 490, 498-99 (1938). The plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the CT Page 3682 evidence that the trust assets are insufficient to build and maintain such a school. In addition, the action taken by the trustees when they sold the school property in 1986 was prudent. That sale not only preserved the trust assets, but allowed them to grow. The cost of maintaining the property, without more, could have depleted the liquid assets of the trust. The real estate was sold for more than its appraised value. When the trustees elected to close the school and sell the building, however, they abandoned their obligation under the Trust. Under the court's equitable powers and the standards of the doctrine of approximation, the actions of the trustees concerning the closure and sale of the school property are ratified.

The parties to this action have stipulated that the gender restriction imposed by the terms of the Trust violates Article I, Section 20 of our state constitution. "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex." Inasmuch as the Trust is concerned with educating children from ages 6 to 21, taking into account the State Constitutional provision for free public elementary and secondary schools, (Article Eighth, Sec. 1

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

Related

Lockwood v. Killian
375 A.2d 998 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Shannon v. Eno
179 A. 479 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1935)
Duncan v. Higgins
26 A.2d 849 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1942)
Second Ecclesiastical Society of Hartford v. Attorney General
48 A.2d 266 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1946)
Seymour v. Attorney General
200 A. 815 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykes-memorial-sch-trustees-v-lieberman-no-38931-nov-15-1990-connsuperct-1990.