West v. Burke

18 Mills Surr. 1
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedJuly 11, 1916
StatusPublished

This text of 18 Mills Surr. 1 (West v. Burke) 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
West v. Burke, 18 Mills Surr. 1 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1916).

Opinion

Chase, J.

George West, the appellant’s father, died January 25, 1906, leaving a will which was duly probated. By his will, after various provisions that are immaterial on this appeal, he provided (by a codicil probated as a part of his will) as follows:

“ Second. All the rest, residue and remainder of my property, real and personal, and of every name and nature, I give, devise and bequeath unto my executors and trustees and to their successors in the trusts hereby created, and' to the survivor or survivors of them, in trust nevertheless, to invest and reinvest my personal property, rent my real property and to collect the income, rents, issues and profits therefrom, and after payment of all expenses and charges connected therewith, to apply the same to the following uses and purposes to wit:
“ I. * * *
II. To pay to my son, Walter S. West, (the appellant herein) semi-annually, the net income of one-third of said residue until he shall arrive at the age of thirty-five years, if he shall survive so long, and when he shall arrive at such age of thirty-five years, to pay to him the sum of fifteen thousand dollars in cash, and thereafter to continue the payment of the net income from the remaining part of said one-third part until my said son shall arrive at the age of forty years, at which ' time I direct my executors and trustees to pay over and transfer to my said son, Walter S. West, the entire remaining portion of [5]*5said one-third of my property to whom I give, devise, and bequeath the same subject to this trust.
III * * *
“ In case of the death of my said sons, or either of them, before they shall come into possession of the property given them by my said will or by this codicil, leaving lawful issue, them or him surviving, then the share to which the one so dying would have been entitled to receive if living’, shall pass to such issue and if any such issue be minors the trust and trustees are continued as to them and such minors shall be paid the income of their share or shares until they shall respectively attain the age of twenty-one years, when the principal shall be paid over and transferred to them. But if either of such sons die leaving no lawful issue him surviving then his share shall pass to the survivor or survivors of them or their issue, as the case may be, and in all other respects I do hereby ratify, confirm and republish my said will.”

The will was dated Hovember 15, 1902, and said codicil July 2, 1904. The testator died leaving him surviving his widow and three sons. The appellant, one of said sons, was born April 17, 1875. He married November 25, 1896, and two children were born of said marriage, both of whom are minors and now living. The trustees under the will of George West, deceased, received from themselves as executors of said will to be held in trust as provided therein the sum of $835,030.94.

On December 2, 1907, appellant’s wife brought an action against him for a separation. On December 9, 1907, he was adjudged an habitual drunkard and a committee was duly appointed of his person and property. On December 26, 1907, a guardian was appointed of the' property of said two children and their mother was appointed guardian of their persons. A proceeding was commenced which resulted in the removal of the appellant as one of the trustees under his father’s will and the defendant Todd was named as a substituted trustee.

[6]*6Between the time when the appellant’s-wife brought the ac-. tion against him for a separation and the 7th of February, 1908, negotiations were had by the appellant and his wife, and in their behalf, with the knowledge and approval of the committee of the person and property of the appellant and also of his mother and brothers, and it was agreed that the complaint of the appellant’s wife jn the action for' separation should be amended so as to set forth a cause of action against the appellant for divorce, and that consent should be given that the court provide in any judgment granted in the action for the payment of $5,000 per year to the plaintiff therein for alimony and for the support and maintenance of their said children and that such amount should be paid in equal monthly payment? by the committee of the property of the appellant out of any moneys that should come- into his hands as such committee.

It was also agreed that the appellant should assign to his wife $15,000 of the residuary estate of his father that by his father’s will was payable to him when he arrived at the age of thirty-five years and also that $100,000 of the principal of said residuary estate that by said will was payable to him when he arrived at the age of forty years should be assigned to a trustee to be held during the life of the appellant’s said wife, the income therefrom to be paid to her as long as she should live and said children were minors, and that as said children respectively reached the age of twenty-one years the net income from one-fourth of the said trust fund be and become the property of said infants, the principal to be paid to said children on the death of his said wife or to the survivor of said infants' or in ease both of said infants should then be dead, to the maker of said trust (the appellant herein) x or in case of his death to his devisees or next of kin.

The complaint in the action by the appellant’s wife against him was amended as provided by said agreement. The testimony in the action for divorce was taken at a Special Term of the Supreme Court, the appellant and his committee appear[7]*7ing at' the trial by counsel, and an interlocutory judgment oí divorce was entered February 13, 1908. Final judgment in that action was entered July 11, 1908. A petition to the Supreme Court was made by the appellant for an order allowing him to make an assignment of said $15,000 and $100,000 as stated. The petition stated that the petitioner had entirely ceased drinking intoxicating liquors and that he was in his right mind and fully understood the contents of his said petition. The appellant’s said committee and h's mother and brothers each in writing joined in the prayer of said petition and therein expressed their belief that it was for the best interest of the appellant to have the agreements therein referred to carried out. The court granted the prayer of the petition and authorized the execution of said assignments by the appellant and by his committee in his behalf and the form of said assignments was duly approved by the court and they were executed and delivered accordingly.

The amount allowed for alimony in the decree of divorce was reduced by order February 2, 1911, to $2,500 per year to be used for the support, maintenance and education of said children. It is conceded that pursuant to the' agreement between the parties all payments of alimony under the judgment of divorce were to cease absolutely upon the payment to the trustee of the $100,000 pursuant to the assignment as stated.

An action was commenced March 19, 1908, by two of the trustees under the will of George West, deceased, against the appellant and his committee and every person interested absolutely or contingently under the will of George West, deceased, and against the third trustee who was also the «trustee of the fund of $100,000 as stated but did not join with the other two trustees as a plaintiff in the action, in which action it was alleged That the plaintiffs, two of the trustees named in said will and codicil to

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

Related

Clowe v. . Seavey
102 N.E. 521 (New York Court of Appeals, 1913)
Stringer v. . Young
83 N.E. 690 (New York Court of Appeals, 1908)
National Park Bank v. Billings
144 A.D. 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Mills Surr. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-burke-nysurct-1916.