Westlake v. Ohio Northern University

256 N.E.2d 642, 21 Ohio Misc. 202, 50 Ohio Op. 2d 417, 1969 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 257
CourtUnion County Probate Court
DecidedNovember 17, 1969
DocketNo. 19858-C
StatusPublished

This text of 256 N.E.2d 642 (Westlake v. Ohio Northern University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Union County Probate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Westlake v. Ohio Northern University, 256 N.E.2d 642, 21 Ohio Misc. 202, 50 Ohio Op. 2d 417, 1969 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 257 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1969).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The material before the court for consideration includes the petition for the construction of the will of Ina B. Keckley, Deceased, filed by Mary H. Westlake, Administratis with the will annexed, of the Estate of Ina B. Keckley, Deceased; answers, briefs, and other pleadings; the proposals of (1) Central Ohio Council, Boy Scouts of America, (2) Seal of Ohio Girl Scout Council, (3) Agricultural Extension Advisory Committee and Union County Agricultural Society, (4) Alert, Inc., (5) W-Y Community Services, Inc., and (6) Gene Amrine; the evidence in all the hearings; the written arguments; the transcript of evidence in all the hearings; and the authorities and cases contained in the trial brief prepared by the court, copies of which were furnished all the counsel of record.

The court has previously found, by the journal entry filed June 9, 1969, that the testatrix, Ina B. Keckley, Deceased, had a general, charitable intent and by reason thereof, the heirs at law have no further interest in this proceedings or claim against any of the property, real or [203]*203personal, devised to the “Keckley Rural Life Center” or under the residuary clause of said will, and that all of said property remaining to which the Keckley Rural Life Center is entitled shall be used for charitable purposes free from any claims of the heirs at law.

The court finds that the decision to be made by the court, as prayed for in the petition for the construction of the will herein, must fall within certain framework, that is to say, the court is required to find that one of the three following alternatives be carried out:

1. Order strict compliance with the will and that the charitable trust set up therein be carried out specifically in conformity to the exact provisions of the will.

2. Find that it is impossible, impracticable, inexpedient, or illegal to carry out the specific purposes of the trust, apply the cy pres doctrine to prevent the failure of the trust and provide some other method to accomplish the intent of the testatrix.

3. Find that owing to subsequent unforeseen contingencies, obedience to the provisions made by the testatrix would be very unwise and might even work a hardship, or owing to circumstances not known to the testatrix, and not anticipated by her, strict compliance with the provisions for the trust would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the purposes of the trust, or that compliance with the terms of the trust is impossible, illegal, impracticable, or inexpedient and order a deviation as long as it does not change the purpose or object of the trust but deals only with the manner of administration.

It is fundamental and axiomatic that the charitable trust herein must be carried out in strict compliance with the will and in specific conformity to its exact provisions, if there is any reasonable way by which the purposes of the charitable trust can be accomplished as provided in the will of decedent.

The two other alternatives can only be considered and applied if it is impossible, impracticable, inexpedient, or illegal to strictly follow the provisions of the will.

The applicable provisions of the will to be construed herein are as follows:

[204]*204“Item 11: I request that three representatives, appointed by the Agriculture Extension Advisory Council, one by the Boy Scout Organization of Union County, Ohio, one by the Girl Scout Organization of Union County, Ohio, and the Judge of the Juvenile Court of Union County, Ohio, form and create a non-profit corporation known as the Keckley Rural Life Center.
‘ ‘ The purpose of said organization shall be to provide and maintain facilities for recreational, educational and character-building activities, primarily for Union County rural people and their organizations on 57% acres of real estate, located in Leesburg Township, Union County, Ohio, which I am providing in this instrument, shall upon the formation of said corporation, be conveyed to it.
“The expenses of the formation of said corporation shall be paid from my estate.
“Item 12: I give and devise my farm of 57% acres, located in Leesburg Township, Union County, Ohio, to Samuel Westlake, or in the event he should predecease me, to Clarence J. Lowry, in trust, and upon the formation of the corporation herein above provided for, he shall convey said real estate to said corporation in fee simple. It is my intention that the Keckley Rural Life Center shall be in memory of my father and shall provide recreational facilities for the rural people of Union County, Ohio.”

The above provisions should be strictly followed, if possible.

The above provisions, to establish a Keckley Rural Life Center, are plain and unambiguous and can be easily interpreted.

As outlined in the will of decedent the plan, in substance, provides for six certain designated representatives to form a corporation not for profit and to provide and maintain facilities for recreational, educational and character-building activities, primarily for Union County rural people and their organizations on 57% acres owned by the testatrix supported by the residue of the money in her estate.

The intent of the decedent is clear that said corporation not for profit is to be created and operated for all time [205]*205by the designated representatives mentioned by testatrix, and there is nothing to indicate that the continuing operation of a Kecldey Rural Life Center should be turned over to any other person, firm, corporation, or organization.

This clear intent of the testatrix must be honored, unless it is impossible, impracticable, inexpedient, or illegal.

The evidence demonstrates that said testatrix had information and knowledge about the Richland County Rural Life Center and there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that her knowledge of said Center materially influenced her in the making of the provisions for the Keckley Rural Life Center.

The evidence demonstrates that the testatrix was given a promotional leaflet describing the purposes of the Rich-land County Rural Life Center; and that testatrix used the exact language of the purpose clause of the constitution of said Center as the stated purpose of the Keckley Rural Life Center.

As a result, every effort is required to be exerted to establish and develop a Keckley Rural Life Center exactly like the Richland County Rural Life Center, or as nearly as is possible like the same.

Perhaps it is necessary to clarify whom the testatrix meant by reciting in her will in Item 11, “primarily for Union County rural people and their organizations.”

Obviously the people and organizations to be benefitted must be within the geographical limits of Union County, Ohio, but not confined to any particular township or neighborhood.

The testatrix clearly meant this to be a county-wide project.

Who are rural people?

There was evidence that the Federal Government of the United States may, perhaps, consider all the residents of Union County, Ohio, to be rural people. It is understandable that the ivory tower of Washington would consider Union County, Ohio, way out in the hinterland of the Mid West, out in the sticks, so to speak, and that the residents of Union County are rural people.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 N.E.2d 642, 21 Ohio Misc. 202, 50 Ohio Op. 2d 417, 1969 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westlake-v-ohio-northern-university-ohprobctunion-1969.