Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 301 (1932). The trial court did not err in sustaining St. Al-ban’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The judgment is affirmed. AHRENS, P.J. and KAROHL, J., concur. 1 . William Rosenburg died on May 28, 1996. Jewell Rosenburg has filed an affidavit attesting that no letters of administration was applied for or granted for the one year period after William Rosenburg’s death. 2 . On August 19, 1997, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and on August 25, 1997 plaintiffs filed an amendment to the motion for summary judgment and Patricia Riebold’s affidavit. The circuit court entered its judgment sustaining St. Alban’s motion on August 25, 1997 and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as moot. 3 . See, e.g., Estate of Crawshaw, 249 Kan. 388, 819 P.2d 613, 618 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. First Presbyterian Church, 284 N.C. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unvested stock options are a form of compensation and constituted marital property that could be distributed through use of a constructive trust (B) holding that if testamentary trust fails proceeds are distributed to the residuary legatee (C) holding that if the trust becomes operative thereafter fails and cy pres is inapplicable the devolution of the trust goes to the heirs at law and not to residuary legatees (D) holding that heirs at law of testatrix were not necessary parties to action where trust fails cy pres is inapplicable and the will contained a residuary clause and finding no basis to distinguish between the situation where the trust does or does not become operative (E) holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate
Output (English): holding that heirs at law of testatrix were not necessary parties to action where trust fails cy pres is inapplicable and the will contained a residuary clause and finding no basis to distinguish between the situation where the trust does or does not become operative