Estate of McNeill

California Court of Appeal Nov 4, 1964 No. Civ. No. 28228Published

Before: Kincaid

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that where a testamentary trust for the care of pets is invalid, the remainder interest in a charitable organization, if vested, may be accelerated to a present interest to effectuate the testatrix's intent.

Issues

Whether the remainder interests of the respondent Societies in the decedent's estate are valid and subject to acceleration following the invalidation of the preceding trust provisions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Societies contend, and we agree, that even if the trusts for the benefit of the animals are invalid, the remainder interests of the Societies are valid, vested and presently ready for distribution under the rule on acceleration of remainders.”

“The remainder created by the will in the respondent Societies is a vested remainder.”

“Since the trust provisions that caused the postponement of the time of enjoyment of the vested remainder have been found to be invalid, such remainder is accelerated to a present interest.”

230 Cal.App.2d 449 (1964) Estate of SARAH D. McNEILL, Deceased. MARGARET HURST LOONEY, Claimant and Appellant,

THE SAN FRANCISCO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS et al., Claimants and Respondents.

Civ. No. 28228. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Two.

Nov. 4, 1964. McGurl & Todd, Robert C. Todd, Peter V. Shackter and Rutan & Tucker for Claimant and Appellant.

McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Harold A. Black, James K. Herbert, Raymond B. Haizlip, Knapp, Gill, Hibbert & Stevens and B. Richard Marsh for Claimants and Respondents.

KINCAID, J. pro tem. [fn. *]

Appellant appeals from an adverse judgment on a petition to determine heirship brought by her pursuant to Probate Code, section 1080.

The decedent, Sarah D. McNeill, died on April 7, 1962, leaving an estate which inventories at some $350,000.

Her will, dated February 27, 1959, left certain specific legacies which are not in dispute. Included in the legacies was one of $2,000 to Mrs. William E. Riser (Riser), to whom was entrusted the care of two dogs, and one of $1,000 to Helen M. Iversen (Iversen), to whom was entrusted the care of a cat.

The will then provided that the residue of the estate should be divided into three shares: two shares to be distributed to Riser, in trust, and one share to Iverson, in trust. The net income from the trust estates is to be added to the principal to form a common fund from which each of the trustees is authorized to withdraw $25 per week for each pet entrusted to her, to be used for their care, maintenance and comfort. If said sums prove to be insufficient to provide for the reasonable care of the animals, the trustees are authorized to use so much more as in their discretion should be necessary for the purpose. On the other hand, should the stipulated stipend be more than adequate, the trustees are to retain the surplus in consideration of their services.

The residue represented by the three shares was given to the trustees for the lives of the animals, respectively. The will states "The primary purpose of this Trust is to see that each of said pets is adequately cared for, given proper veterinary [451]

Estate of McNeill

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief