FOURTH DIVISION FILED: May

10, 2007

No. 1-06- 1713
THE NOR

THERN TRUST C OMPA

NY, ) Ap pe al fr o m t he Cir cu it Trustee of the Ca roli ne E. Haskel

l Trust, ) Court of C ook County , ) Co unt y Depa rt ment Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Ch an cery Di vi si on ) v. ) No. 04 CH 19234 ) ELIZABETH YA

TES KNOX, MICHAEL LLOYD ) YAT ES , E LIZ ABET H LE E LO UGH RAN, DE BOR AH ) LEE HELLER, WA

LTER W. BELL, n

ot in div idua ll y b ut ) as TR USTEE OF

THE DEB ORA

H LEE TR

UST, ) CYNT HIA

HEA LY EL LIS, W INSTON HEA LY J R., ) JONATHAN L. HEALY ELIZABETH CONDICT ) LANGE, CAROLYN G. LANGE CLARKE, STACY ) LA NGE C OLU

MBO , CONN

IE LEE F OSTER, ) GERR ITT DA VIS F OSTER, II I, LA

WR ENCE LEE ) FOS TER, CHERYL

LYN N FO STER, C HA

RLES ) CLAYTON ELIOT, THE NEW ENGLA ND ) CONS ERVA

TORY OF M USIC, H AR OLDSMITH ) SCHUTT, JR., THE T OWER HILL SCHOOL ) ASS OCIA

TION, W ILM INGTON

TRUST C OMPA

NY, ) not i ndi vi dual l y but a s TRU STEE OFTHE LOUISE P. ) SCHUTT TRUST d

ated 11 -2-64, C HA

RLES PORTER ) SCHUTT, JR., S AR

AH LOUISE SCH

UTT HA RRIS ON, ) CA ROLINE DuP ONT SC HUTT B ROW N, ERIK ) FR AN Z-EUG ENE STREI TWIES ER, CH AR LES ) ED WARD S TR EI TWI ES ER , B ERNHAR D T HOM AS ) STREITW

IESER, C HRISTIANE CECEL IA ) STREITWIESER BUNN, GRETA BROWN LA YTON ) SCHUTT, JULIA D eHA

VEN B REED D ODSO

N, ) HEERLEI N RIGGS BANK, N.A., no t indi viduall y b ut as ) TRUSTEE O F THE R

ICHA RD ED WA

RDS B REED ) III TRUST, RICHARD EDW ARDS BREED, LYNN ) EDW AR DS BR EED SNY

DER, M AR THA GA RRETT ) BREED, BB&T TRUST, not indi vi dual ly but as )-2-

TRUSTEE O F THE G

EORGE BREED

REVO CA

BLE ) TRUST, A

NA MA RIA DePEL LECER , THE JA NE ) BREED DePEL

LECER TRU ST f/b

/o JUAN JOSE ) DePEL LECER , THE JA NE BR EED DeP ELL ECER ) TRUST f/b/o RICHA

RD EDWA

RDS BREED, PAUL ) EDW AR D JO HNSO

N JR ., JOA

N J. JOHNS ON, J

AMES ) THA YER JOHNS ON, J

R., JA MES C AL

VIN ) ALDR IDGE, JR., CHRISTOPHER BRINSON ) AL DRID GE, CA

ROL YN BR INSON AL DRID GE, ) GIDEON S INTERN

ATIO NA L, THE G

REAT ) COMMISSIO

N, PATRICIA

MA RTIN H AR MON , ) PAU LENE M AR TIN PUTN

AM , WIL LIA M CH AR LES ) MA RTIN, W ILL IAM BRA NTLEY AL DRID GE, JR ., ) EMMA EUGENIA

AL DRID GE BEA

UFO RD, F RA

NCES ) PAU LINE A LDR IDGE, ELLA

LOUISE A

LDR IDGE ) REED, EDMUND CARLTON A LDRIDGE III, MARION ) DOUG LA S AL DRID GE, GER

AL D FR AN KLIN ) AL DRID GE, ELSI E J. A

LDR IDGE, L UCY E LIZAB ETH ) A. D AVIS, LA

NDON THOM AS A LDR IDGE, ) PATRIC IA ANN ALDRIDGE PENN INGT ON, P AMELA ) SUE A . McCASL

IN, THOM

AS W AY NE A LDR IDGE, ) JR., R UTH W AR REN A LDR IDGE, STEP HEN M ORR IS ) AL DRID GE, ST. LU

KE U NITED METHODIS T ) CHUR CH OF AU GUSTA , GEOR

GIA , AN NIE MA RIE ) AL DRID GE, TIMO THY C AR LTON AL DRID GE, ) KENNE TH WILLI AM ALDRIDGE, GEORG E NE IL ) AL DRID GE, JA

MES MERLI

N CHR ISTOPHER

, JR., ) EDW AR D W ILL IAM AC TON C HRISTO PHER, ) JA MES DA VID C HRISTO PHER, C ONSTA NCE ) CHR ISTOPHER

JONES VA

UGHN , EAR

LINE ) BA LDW IN A LDR IDGE, EDG

AR AL LEN A LDR IDGE, ) JR., MARJ

ORIE E. ALDRIDGE, FRANK CARLTON ) AL DRID GE, JR ., MA

RSHA ELIZAB ETH A

LDR IDGE ) GA FF IN, LIS A LILL IAN

AL DRID GE YIA

LYS, ) GEORGE EDGAR AL

DRIDGE, SARA ERIKSON ) AL DRID GE STEVEN S, MA RY JO A LDR IDGE ) RA KO SKE, W

ILL IAM GEOR GE A LDR IDGE, ) BARB ARA

A. AL DRIDGE, ELIZABETH L. ALD RIDGE ) SHUM PERT, M AR Y A NN A LDR IDGE R AY , ) MARION FRANCIS HITE CARPENTER, GLENN ) KEN DA LL VA N SA NT, SR., S TEFA

N VA N SA NT, ) CAMILLE VAN SA

NT, GLENN KENDALL VAN ) SANT , JR ., MARY P AYSI NGE R RI NGE R, ED NA )-3-

HITE PA YSINGER JA

CK SON, R

ICHA RD D. ) BRA DLEY , WA

YNE A LBO N SCO TT, SR., ) MELISSA W

INDHAM, SCOTT BAR KLEY, WA

YNE ) AL BON S COTT, J

R., MA RION LIND ELL

SCOTT, ) EDW AR D HITE SC OTT, FR

AN CES BA

TES HA IR, ) DORI S BA

TES QUA

RLES , AN GELA

B. BA TES, ) JA MES TOD D BA

TES, WILL IAM

EDW AR D BA TES, ) JERR Y MIC HA

EL BA TES, TERESA

AN N BA TES, ) DAVID EVERETTE BATES, JR., CLYDE ANDERSON ) BATES III , ILE NE BATE S FORD, WILLIAM A. RAWL, ) JR., JOHN DURHA

M BONEY, JR., NANCY BO NEY ) LEE, VA NDER LYN S. RA WL , JA MES F RA

NK RA WL , ) JR., B ETTY A

NNE R AW L, L AW RENC E ) LAFF ORTHUN, T HE EST ATE OF GEORGE E DWARD ) GER RIE , de cease d, J EAN H AMLIN R EI TE R, LI NDA F. ) McCULL OGH KILGOR E, JAMES BERT FITZGERAL D, ) MICHAEL R . FITZGERALD, K ATHLEEN FITZGERA

LD) INGR AM , JEF FR

EY TODD

HA MLI N, MIC HONE ) EL IZ ABET H HAMLIN S NYDER, ER IC J . NI LS ON , not ) i ndi vi dual l y but a s TRU STEE OFTHE PA UL G
. ) HA MLI N TRU ST, ADA M

AR GA RET BY RNE ) WHEELER HUNTE R, BARBRA A NN WHEELER ) PATCH, GEOR

GE FO RREST

BUTTER

WO RTH III, ) LUCIL E WHEELER

-VAUG HN, HA RRY R OBERTS ) WHEELER, J

R., F REDER

ICK HA SKEL

L W HEELER, ) DA VID HA LE BU RLA ND, NA OMI L UCILE ) BURL AND W AHL STROM, HA SKELL ROBB INS ) BUR LA ND, M ONA

KO ELB C LIF FOR

D, PA LMER ) WHEELER K

OELB , WR

IGHT B AR

TON A LDR IDGE, ) JR., A DELE K. HA

NNA H, GER AL D H. GA GNIER , ) MARIE N. GONYO, ROLA ND GONYO, MAR

IAN ) EUNIC E NOR

TH W INCH , GULLIF ORD, R

ODNEY E. ) NORT H, CA

ROLINE MA

BEL NORTH

PAS CO, ) MARVIN E. KRAUSS, CHARLES BREWSTE R ) PRENTIS S III, JU

LIA N BL AK E PRENTIS S HAGEN, ) JULIA M. PRENTISS, ROB ERT THADD EUS ) ELL ETT III, THELMA

D. ELL ETT, LA RS R. H AGEN, ) SR., LOIS G. PHILLIPS, JEANETTA HARD ) WEA THERF ORD, W

ILL IAM HENR Y HA RD, ) AR THUR L. JO NES, MA

RY R IVERS K ELL O, ) JOSEPH H. McGEE, JR., CHARLES GOODWIN ) WH ITMIR

E, JA MES M AR TIN W HITMIR E, JR., ) EVELY N JEN NINGS WH ITMIR

E, FR AN CES C. )-4-

SIMONDS, JOHN C. SIMOND S, JR,. CHARLES R. ) SI MON DS , AU GUS TU S H . H AYDE N I V, TH OMAS ) EPTING H

AY DEN, SU ZA NNE J AN OTHA , MA

NFR ED ) JA NOTHA , THOM AS M AR SHA LL WEST IV, ) STEP HEN M. WEST , KATHERINE McCALLUM ) GOOD WIN , ELIZAB ETH W . WEST , CA ROLINE ) HA SKEL L SIM PSON, D IAN

A H ASK ELL SHEW AL TER,) HENRY HAMILTON HA SKELL, SR., MAR Y ) TH EO DOS IA H ASKE LL, JAME S T ILL SO N, MARI AN ) BLA YNEY TIL

LSON , THOM

AS P AGET TILL SON, ) STEPHEN TI LL SON, LINDA BISSEL L K NECH TEL, ) STORY BISSELL KORNB LUTH, GRAHA M HENRY ) RICH AR DSON , PAG

ET DA NIELS RICH

AR DSON , ) CIN TH IA RI CHAR DS ON C ALKIN S, LOU IS DE AN ) FR EDERIC FR ASCHE, RO BERT M cLA NE FR ASCHE, ) JAMES W

ILLIAM FRASCHE, FRA NCES P. DODD ) PAHL MANN , N ANCY DOD D FE RGU S, SAND RA ) HASKE LL DOD D WILKI NSO N, T HE E ST ATE O F ) WILLIA M MILLER OUTCA

LT, JR., deceased, and ) certa in unknown pot ential

remai nder benef

ici aries, )

) Defe ndan ts-Appelle es ) ) (The New En gl and Con serv

atory of M usi c, ) Ho nor able Be rne t t a D. Bus h,

) Jud ge P re siding Def endan t-App el l an t). )

JU STI CEMU

RP HY de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: This ac t ion wa s bro ught by plaintiff, The No rt her n Tr ust Co mpany, a s t ru st ee o f the Ca rol i ne E. H as ke l l

Tru st (North ern

Tru st), wh

i ch sough t i ns tructi ons f rom the tri al cou rt on how t o d istr ibut e t he t ru st pr incipal upo n t er minatio n of t he t ru st . D efenda nt New Eng land Cons ervatory

of M usi c (NEC ) and def

endan t Cha rl es C . El i ot fi

l ed cros s-m

otion s f or sum mary judgm ent aris in g from their m utual cl ai m of the sam e one-si xth sh are of the trust princi

pal known as the “L ucy Smi th” share. The tri al

court , fi ndi ng that Eli

ot was enti

tled to t he en

tire “L ucy1-06-1713

-5-

Smi th” share of

the trust pr in

ci pal , granted Eliot ’s m

ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt and den

ie d NEC’s motion. On appeal, NEC argues t hat the t rial cour t incorrect ly

deter mi ned when the trust
v ested . F or th

e f oll owi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e dec i si

on of th e tr i al cou rt. I. BACKG

ROUND Carolin e E. Haskell executed a t rust indenture o n Jul y 7, 1892, and a companion trust in denture on April 15, 1896, that transferred real propert y to Nort hern Trust as trustee. Under the terms of the trust, after Caroli ne’s death, each of 17 n

am ed i ndi vi dual s (Fi rst Takers) received a sp ecified inco me inter est in the t ru st unt il the ea rlier t o o ccu r o f the t ru st ’s t er minatio n or t he income be neficiary’s d eat h. S pec ifi cally, “par agr aph FI RST ” pr ovid ed t hat Luc y Smith, Carolin e’s si ster and o ne of the 17 First Takers, w ould receive one-si xth of the incom

e in terest “for and d ur ing her nat ur al lif e sho uld she sur vive said p ar t y of t he first par t , a nd aft er her dea t h,
or aft er t he de at h of sa id par t y of t he first par t sho uld she sur vive said Lu cy Smith, and u p t o t he ti me of th e f i n al sa l e a n d di str i b uti on of th e p roc ee dsof

sa i d p rop er ty as h erei n af ter pr ov i de d, t o the l awf ul he i rs of the s aid Luc

y Sm i th, per stirpes .” Fu rth erm ore, pur suan

t to “p ara gra ph SEC OND”of

the trust, th e tru st term

i na ted on October 14, 2003, 21 years af ter t he l ast to die of certain

nam ed i ndi vi dual s, whi

ch i ncl uded Haskell ; three First Takers, in cludi ng Lucy Smi th; and the children of those three First Taker s, in cl udin g Lucy Smi th’s ch il dren, Li ll ia n MacL enn

on and Luci

us Wal do Smi th, Jr. “Paragraph SECOND” provided that upon the termi nation da te, t he property was to be sold an d the proceeds
were to be distri

bute d ei ther (1 ) am

ong the Fi rst Take r’sl awf ul he i rs, per stirpes , as to t he three Fi rst T akers named as m

easuring l iv es; or (2) to the First Taker, if li vi ng, ot herwise to t he Fi

rst1-06-1713

-6-

Taker ’sl awf

ul he i rs, per stirpes , a s t o t he 14 First Ta ker s no t named a s measu ring lives. The t ru st spe cifically

pr ovid ed t hat one -sixt h of t he t ru st pr incipal was t o be dist ribut ed “a mong t he l awf ul he i rs of the s aid Luc

y Sm i th, per stirpes .” Car oline died in April 190 0, and e ach o f the First Ta ker s died befo re t he t er minatio n of t he Trust. Lucy Sm

ith di ed i n 1935 wi th two la wful hei rs: Luci us Wal do Smi th, Jr., and Li ll

ia n Mac Len na n. L uci us di ed i n 19 36 an d be quea thed his en tire i ntere st i n the Trust to hi s si

ster, Lil li an. From 1936 until h

er deat h i n 1961, Lil

li an receiv ed the o ne-six

th incom e in terest origi na l l y pai d to Lucy Sm i th. Li l l i an ’s wi l l pr ov i de d th

at h er h us b an d, Norm an Ma cL en n on , a n d s on , Si dn ey F. El i ot,
wer e ea ch t o r ece ive a lifetime o ne- half inter est of t he inco me inter est , w hich NE C wo uld r ece ive upon their respe ctive

deaths. Li

ll ia n’s wil l a ls o att em pted to bequeath h

er in terest in the proceeds of the f i na l sal e an d di stri buti on of the trust property

to NEC. Si dne y El l i ot die d a wi

dower i n 19 85. He

had one chi l d, Ch arles El i ot, who sur

vi ve d hi m . Charles El

i ot isLucy

Sm i th’s great-g randch i l d an d he r onl y surv i vi ng h ei r. Soo n af ter t he trust ter mi

nated, Nort hern Trust fi

le d this action seeki

ng a determi

nation as t o t he r ema ind er be ne ficia r ies un de rt he T rus t . NE C a nd Ch ar les E lio t ea ch at t emp t ed t o cla im Lucy Sm ith’s sh are and fi led cross-motions for summ ary j udgment. NEC arg ued that the tr ust
ve sted a t the ti me of the F i rst Take r’sdeath and, theref

ore, Luc y Sm i th’s “l awf ul he i rs” were determi ned as of Lucy Smi th’s death. Ac cordingl

y, Luc ius and Li ll ia n were en titled to Lucy Smith’s shar e o f the net pr oc eed s o f the t ru st est at e at t he t ime of t he t er minatio n of t he t ru st , a nd Lill ia n coul d bequeath h

er share of the

trust prin ci pal to NEC. Eliot , however, cl ai me d that1-06-1713

-7-

vesti ng was determ

in ed at termin

ation of the trust. Therefore, Eli ot , Lil li an’s grandson, was
en t it led t o t he Lu cy S mit h sh ar e o f t he t rus t pr inc ipa l. The trial court held that a 1929 Illi nois Supreme Court ca se in terp reting the tr ust addressed t he question of vestin g, whil e a 1933 circuit cour t decr ee in terp reting the tr ust addre ss ed the que sti on of wh o wa s to re ce i

ve the i nc ome. The

193 3 de cre e g ave l

aw f ul he i rs of First Ta ker s t he r ight t o d ispo se o f the income in any wa y they wa nt ed bu t did no t give t hem the righ t t o dispose of the pri

nci pal . Al though the court did n

ot bel ie ve that the 1929 case h

ad a res judicata eff ect, it found the cas e to be “very in structive.” Ac cordingl

y, Luc y Sm ith’ s “l awful he i rs ” w oul d b e d eterm

i ne d f or pu rpos esof the pri nc i pal di stri bu ti on a t the ti me of the term i na ti on of the t rust , not at t he time of Lucy Sm ith’s deat h. Ther efore, the t rial court grant ed Eliot’s
m oti on an d f oun d h e w as en ti tl ed to th e en ti re“ Lu cy Sm i th ” sh are of

th e tr us t. The trial court found that there was n o just reason f

or delay in g enf orcemen t o f the order grantin g Eli ot ’s m ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt and den

yi ng NEC’s motion. This appeal

fol lowed. II. AN AL YSIS Summ ary j udgme

nt is appropriate when the

ple adi ngs, deposi

tions, and other evi

dence
re v ea l th at th er e is n o gen ui n e iss ue of mate rial f act an d th at th e m ovi n g p ar ty i s e n ti tl ed to jud gme nt as a ma t t er o f law
. 73 5 I LC S 5 /2
- 10 05 ( We st 20 04 )
. Su mmar y jud gme nt is a dr as t ic
mea ns o f r es o lving lit iga t io n a nd sho uld o nly be allo we d w he n t he r igh t o f t he mo ving pa r t y is clear a nd f ree f rom d oubt. Bier

v. Lea nna Lakes ide P

rope rty A ss’n , 305 Ill . App. 3d 45, 50 (1999) . An appell

ate co urt ’s revi ew of a grant o f sum mary judgm ent is de novo
. Woods v. Pence , 303 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 57 3, 576 ( 1999)
.1-06-1713

-8-

Eli ot and NEC agree that there i s no genui ne i ssue of m

aterial fact but di sagree as to when the trust vested. NECargue s tha t the 193 3 decree h

eld tha t Lucy Sm i th’s “l awf ul he i rs” were determi ned as of Lucy Smi th’s death, whi

le Eli ot contends that the parties are b ound by the 1929
cas e b eca use i t determ i ne d tha t the sol e i ntere st of th

e i ni tia l he i rs wa s i nc ome i ntere st. Fu rth erm ore, both NEC an d El i ot arg uetha t the pl ai n l an gua geof the trust an d/or rul esof constr uction suppo rt t hei

r respect iv

e positions. A. P re viou s Tr ust Co nst ru ct ions NEC c onten

ds that the 1 933 de cree

he l d tha t Lucy Sm i th’s “l awf ul he i rs” were de term i ne d a s of Lucy Sm i th’ s dea th, an d the p arti

esare bou nd by i t pur suan t to the doc tri ne of coll ateral estoppel. Conv

ersel y, El iot argues that the 1933 decree only sets the tim

e at whi ch he i rsh i p i s determ

i ne d at eac h ge nerati on, n

ot the ti me f or ves tin g of the pri nc i pal i ntere st. I nst ea d, E lio t co nt en ds , t he pa r t ies ar e b o un d b y t he 19 29 su pr eme co ur t ca se be ca us e it determi ned that the sole i

nterest of the in

itial hei rs was i ncom e i nterest. As such, Li

ll ia n Ma cL en na n c o uld no t be qu ea t h a n int er es t in t he pr inc ipa l. 1. 1929 S upreme Court Case Like t he t rial co ur t , w e find t he 19 29 s upr eme co ur t cas e t o be dispo sitive. In 1 925 , t he t rus t ee o f t he Ha sk ell t rus t so ug ht inst ruc t io ns f r o m t he cir cu it co ur t as t o wh et he rit sho uld
exec ut e a c ont ra ct acc ept ing incre ase d r ent in exchang e fo r a llowing t he lesse e t o d emolish and replac e a bui

ldi ng on the l

and. Wa ll ace Condict, son of Fi

rst Taker Louisa Condi

ct, and Lucy Sm i th , a Fi rs t Ta ker, ob j ec ted to th e l ea se . L ouisa

Con di ct a n d h er son , Wal l ac e, l i ke Lu cy Sm i th and he r c hildren, wer e named as meas ur ing lives in “para gr aph S EC OND .” In The Northern1-06-1713

-9-

Trust Co. v. Thompson , 336 Ill. 137, 15 4 (19 29), our supre me court rejecte d Wall ace Co ndict’s
and Luc y Sm i th’s obj ections a

nd f ound th at the c ontract was i

n the b enef

i ciaries’ be st i

ntere sts. The court also stated,

“ It i s n ot sugge ste d how or i

n w ha t man ne r th e ri gh ts of [Wal l ac e] C ond

i ct, or of t hos e in his class in t heir r elat ion t o t he pr op er t y, ca n be ad ver sely affect ed by t he new bu ilding unde r t he long -t er m lease. The ir right t o p os sess ion o f the lot , a nd t he bu ilding o n it , is no t affe ct ed , fo rno su ch r igh t is ve st ed in t he m. T he ir s o le right unde r t he t er ms of t he will is i n t heir p or t ion o f the income, enhanc ed by t he
co mpro mise agr eement at Co ndict ’s insist ence [, ] t hou gh no t as muc h as he demand ed. Unde r t he t er ms of t he t ru st [, ] t he fee w ill not pas s t o a ny of t he pr ese nt beneficiar ies. At t he exp irat ion o f tw ent y-o ne year s aft er t he de at h of t he l ast su rvi v or of Mr s. Ha sk

el l an d of h er de sc en da n ts n am ed i n th e tr us t i n str um en t, t he t ru st ee is d irect ed t o s ell and co nvey the leaseho ld inte re st and d istr ibut e t he net pr oc eed s o f the sale as dire ct ed. It is not co nt ende d t hat sec ur ity for t he in come of the ul

tim ate benef ic ia ries is im peril ed by the new b

uil din g.” Thompson , 336 Il l . at 153-5 4. We agree wi

th Eli ot that because Li

ll ia n, as a f el low i ni tial hei r, was in the sam e “cl ass” as Wal la ce Condict, t he suprem

e court det ermi

ned that the sole i

nterest of the in

itial hei rs was i nc ome i ntere st. NEC argues that the trial

court mi sconstrued the suprem

e court’s reference to the “f ee” when it st at ed t hat unde r t he t er ms of t he t ru st , “t he fee w ill not pas s t o a ny of t he pr ese nt1-06-1713

-10-

ben efi ci aries .” The trial

court hel d that in thi

s context, the “f

ee” was the pri

nci pal , whether i

t was in fee si mpl e or cash. NE C att empts to li mi t t he supreme court ’s holdi ng by arguing that it must ha ve mean t that no b enef

i ciary would ever rec ei

ve f ee ti tle to the un derl y i ng r eal estate. However, it would not make sense for the supreme court to bar Condict and those in his class fro m object ing t o t he lease if i t believed t hat t hey wer e o wner s o f the t ru st re mainder but had no i ntere st i n the buil di

ng. In thi s sam

e vei n, NEC argues that the “presen t benef ic ia ries ” of the trust in 1929 i ncl ude in itial hei rs who could recei

ve trust princi

pal at the termin

ation date becaus e they

were not nam

ed
as meas ur ing lives. T her efo re , it co nt ends , w hen t he su pr eme co ur t st at ed t hat pr ese nt ben efi ci aries would not receiv

e the “f ee,” it m ust have m

eant the actual ti

tle to t he real

estate, si nce the property was to be sol d at the termin ation of the trust and the cash was to be div

ide d and d istr ibut ed a mong re mainder beneficiar ies. We aga in reject NE C’s s t ra ined r ead ing o f the
o pin io n; e ve n a ss umin g t he va lidit y o f NE C’ s d efin it io n o f “p r es en t be ne ficia r ies , ” t he su pr eme
co ur t wo uld no t pr ohibit t he o wner s o f a t ru st co rp us fr om o bject ing o n t he bas is tha t t he building
own ed b y th e tr us t wou l d b e s ol d a

t so me p oi

n t. NE C a lso co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in r elying o n t he 19 29 ca se be ca us e it misc o nst rue d t he ca se ’s ho ldin g o n t he mer it s o f t he be ne ficia r ies ’ c r o ss - bill as a h o ldin g o n t he ir standi ng. NEC c i

tes the f oll owin g pass age f

rom the suprem e court opin

i on:

“ It i s a l so c onte nd ed tha t the bi l l sh oul d have b een d

i sm i ss ed f or wa nt of
nece ssar y par t ies. All nece ssar y par t ies-- t hat is, all per so ns having a pr ese nt inter est in the s ubject matt er of t he co nt ro ver sy and w ho w ou ld t ake a dist ribut ive1-06-1713

-11-

share i f distribution had b een m

ade at the comm

encem ent of the sui

t--were part ie s to the sui t. Others who woul d take i

n the ev en t of thos e wh

o were p arti es w ere
re pr ese nt ed by t hem. [ Cita t ion. ] T he t ru st ee r epr ese nt s t hos e having a co nt ingent i ntere st i n the trust f

und . [Ci tations.] A

l l pres en t or conti nge nt i ntere sts we

re properly represented and are b ound by the decree.” Thompson , 336 Il l . at 157. NEC contends that these f in din gs state that t he “

present ben

efi ci aries ,” which i

ncl uded Wal la ce Condi ct, were necessary

parties. See Village of Lansing v. Sundstrom , 379 Ill . 121, 125 (1942) (general rule is that beneficiaries of a trust are necessary parties to an act ion brought t o foreclose their interest s). T hus, as a nece ssary part y, Wal lace Condict had st anding by defin ition. NE C’s inter pr et at ion, how ever , w ou ld go aga inst t he su pr eme co ur t ’s clea r st at ement t hat Co ndict , a nd those in his class , only

had an i nterest in the incom

e of the tr ust and wo uld render it superfl uous. Fu rth erm ore, ac cord

i ng to NEC , th e on

l y ref ere nc e to C ond

i ct’ s a l l eg ati on on the i ss ueof standi ng appears i

n the appel

la te court opini

on, which states that “[o]t her al le gations are m

ade, particularly

as regards Condi

ct’s i nterest in the rents and i

n the trust estat e upon a fi nal dis tributi on, etc.” The Northern Trust C o. of Chicago v. Thompson , 245 Il l . Ap p. 20, 32(1927 ), overruled , The Northern Trust C

o. v. Thompson , 336 Ill . 137 (1929). NEC co ntends that Co nd ict ’s cla im t o 10 0 % o f his mo t he r ’s sha r e b as ed o n t he Ru le in S he lley’ s C as e w as t he full extent of the “ ot her al

le gations” regardi

ng Condi ct’s i nterest in the trust est ate upon a fi

nal di str i b uti on . H owev er , the s

up re me c our

t, w h i ch di d n ot i den ti f y wh o as se rte d th at a rgum en t, summarily dispens ed w ith an o bject ion bas ed o n t he Ru le in Shelley’s Case beca use t her e wa s no
rea l es tateto wh

i ch the rul e c oul d a ppl y , si nc e the re al

es tatewoul d b e s ol d a

t the term i na ti on of1-06-1713

-12-

the trust. Thompson , 336 Ill. at 156 -57. It did not li nk its holding regard ing the Rule in Shelley’s Case wi th its rul in g regardin

g standi ng. Eli ot argues that NEC is b ound by the 1929 opini

on pursuant to t he doctrine of coll ateral est op pel. Co llater al est op pel “is an eq uit able do ct rine o f judicial or igin cre at ed t o p re vent reli tigation of

previously

adj udic ated clai

ms and i s f ounded i n pri nci ple s of j udic ia

l e conomy .” Ballw eg v. City of Springfield

, 11 4 Il l . 2d 107 , 11 3 (1 986 ). Th

e re qui rem en ts f or th e a ppl i ca ti on of coll ateral estoppel i

ncl ude the fol

lowi ng: (1) the i ssue deci

ded i n the previ

ous li tigation wa s iden tical to t he one presented in the case in question, (2 ) there wa s a fi nal judgm ent on t he m

erits, and ( 3) t he pa rt y against who m est op pel is ass er t ed is a par t y or in privity wit h a pa rt y from t he prior adj udi

cation. Ballweg

, 114 Ill . 2d at 113. Eli ot argues that NEC is i

n pri vi ty wi th the parties i

n the 1929 case

because it i s a legatee under the will of an

in itial hei r. Eliot cites People ex rel. B urris v. Progressive Land De velopers, Inc. , 1 51 I ll. 2d 2 85, 296 (1 992 ), in supp or t of his co nt ent ion t hat pr ivity co nt emplat es su cce ssive int er es t s in t he sa me p r o pe r t y rig ht s t ha t we r e t he su bje ct o f pr io rlit iga t io n, an d a su cc es so rin in terest is b ound by the j udgment of that pr ior li tigation. Ho wever, an argument that NEC is a “suc ces so r in inte re st ” se ems t o be lie Eliot ’s o t her ar gument t hat NE C has no inter est in the pr incipal of t he t ru st . While t he 19 29 c ase do es no t have a co llater al est op pel effect , t he so und reasoni ng of the s

upreme c ourt is

accepted. 2. 1933 Superior Court Decr ee On Jul y 12, 1933, the superi

or co urt o f Cook County also in terpret ed the trust in a decree fil ed in The N

orth ernTrus t Co. v

. Cond ict, No. 530534. I n that case, the superior co urt held that1-06-1713

-13-

t he First Ta ker s o nly had a life inter est in the ne t re nt s fro m the t ru st pr op er t y. Up on t he de at hs of t he First Ta ker s, t heir r esp ect ive heirs w er e ves t ed w ith an ind efeas ible equit able inte re st in the Fi rst Take r’sshare of

net rent, wh

i ch they could con

vey by wil l
. Condict , slip o p. at 17
. While the overwhel

mi ng m aj ority of the decree i

nvol ved the vestin

g of the i ncom e i nterest under “p ar ag r ap h FI RS T ” o f t he t rus t , t he co ur t br iefly d isc us se d “ pa r ag r ap h S E CO ND
. ” U nd er Ar t icle XXVI, the court stated t hat the i ssue was raised:

“ asto the pe rs ons wh o wi l l be en ti tl ed to take the ne t proc ee dsof

sa l e of the trust es tateat the ti

me of the term i na ti on of the trust un de r th e p rovi si

ons of paragrap h num

bered ‘Second’ of said Trust I ndenture o f Jul y 7, 1892, in thi s, whet her in the r esp ect ive gifts t o * ** t he lawful heir s o f Lucy Smit h per stirpes , *** i f such f i rs t take rs , re sp ec ti

ve l y , b e n ot l i vi ng at the ti me of the term i na ti on of t he t ru st , t he lawful heir s re ferr ed t o a re t he lawful heir s o f the ir re spe ct ive
an ce stors de term i ne d a s of the ti me of the an ce stor’ s dea

th, or th e l

aw f ul he i rs of t heir r esp ect ive ance st or s de t er mined as o f the t ime of t he t er minatio n of t he trust .” Condict , sli

p op. at 95-96. The court co ncl

uded: “That t he lawful heir s re ferr ed t o o f the named a nces t or s in the pr ovisio ns of sa id par agr aph nu mbered ‘Se co nd’ o f such T ru st Ind ent ur e, pr ovid ing for t he dis tributi on of the net proceeds of sal e i n sh ares as there set f

ort h, are and wi

ll be,
un de rt he pr o pe rco nst ruc t io n o f sa id T rus t I nd en t ur e, t he law ful h eir s o f t he ir respectiv e ancesto rs as of the respec tive ti me s of the death of

such an cestors.”1-06-1713

-14-

Condict , sl

i p op. at 96. Section M of

the 1933 decree al so repeats the second paragraph ve rbatim. See Condict , sli

p op. at 120. NEC arg

uesthat the

1933 d ecre e di ctates th at Lucy Sm i th’s “l awf ul he i rs” were de ter m i n ed as of Lu cy Sm i th ’s de ath . Th

eref ore , L uc i usan d L i l l i an wereen ti tl ed to b eq ue ath thei r i ntere st, an

d Eli ot had n

o cl ai m to the pri nc i pal
. NEC adm its that the ci

ted por tions of the 1933 de cree are dicta an d, t he r efo r e, o nly in structive. Furtherm

ore, we fi nd that even

if the superi or co urt ruled on when the trust pr in

ci pal
ve sted, s uch a rul i ng woul d be

contrar y to the suprem

e court’ s 192 9 i

nterpretati on of

the trust. A deci sion of the Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court i s b i

ndi ng on al l tria l courts. Garcia v. Hynes & How es Real Estate, Inc. , 29 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 47 9, 482 ( 1975)
. I t is a lso sig nific an t t ha t wh ile t he su pe r io rco ur t sp ec ifica lly held se ve r al t imes t ha t inc o me int er es t s ha d “ ve st ed ” a t t he de at hs o f t he Fir st T ak er s, t he wo r d “ ve st ing ” d o es no t ap pe ar in subse ction M, the portion of the decree rel ating to the prin

ci pal of the trust. Final

ly , it was im possibl e for Lucius or Lil

li an to r eceiv

e any tru st principal

because they were m

easuring l iv es; the trust co uld n

ot termi nate unti l a

t least 21 y

ears af ter t hei r deaths. To allow the tr ust princ ipa l to v est i n th e v er y pe opl e w h o cou l d n ot re ce i v e a n y of th e tr us t pri n ci pal wou l d b e c on tra ry to Haskel l ’si nten t. B. Language of the Tr ust The langua ge o f the t ru st also sup po rt s o ur co nclusio n t hat t he pr incipal vest ed u po n ter m i n ati on of th e tr us t. O ur goa l i s to as certai

n th e g ra n tor’ s i n ten t an d to g i v e i t ef f ec t, provi ded that he

r i nten tion i s n ot vi ola tiv e of a settled rule or contra

ry to publ i c pol i cy . Warren-1-06-1713

-15-

Boynton State Bank v. Wallbaum , 1 23 I ll. 2d 4 29, 436 (1 988 ). Int ent is found by analyzing the specifi c words used in

conj unction w

ith the c ircum

stances un

der which they

were drafted, i nc l udi ng th e state of the testator’s prope

rty, h er f am i l y , and the l i ke. Wallbaum , 123 Ill . 2d at 436. None of the words is considered me ani

ngless, repugnan

t, o r surplus age, and n

o one clause , phr ase , or sen

tenc e deter

m i ne s the i nten t. Wallbaum , 12 3 I ll. 2 d a t 43 6. “Whe n t he int en t io n is not clear, the courts must resort t o rules of cons truct ion to determi

ne the m eani ng.” Wallbaum , 123 Ill . 2d at 436. The Has kell t ru st sho ws a clear intent t o p os t po ne ves t ing o f the pr incipal unt il the t er minatio n of t he t ru st . I n Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Beach , 1 18 I ll. 2d 1 (1 987 ), t he tes tator e nte red i nto a trust agree

men t prov i di ng tha t the i nc ome w asto be

pai d to h i s wi f e f or l i f e, a nd upon he r de ath , th e b al

an cewou l d b e di

vi de d a mong the tes tator’ s h

ei rs . A t the ti me of the wi fe’ s death, the testat or’s then-liv in g descenda

nts were his two grandchildren and three gr ea t - gr an dc hild r en . T he pa r t ies dis pu t ed wh et he rt he t es t at o r ’s he irs sho uld be as ce r t ain ed at his de ath or th e dea th of h i s wi f e, th e l i f e te n an t. Al though the word “hei

rs” refers to “ ‘those persons

appoin ted by the la w to inhe rit an est at e in case of int est acy, ’ ” o ur sup re me co ur t has ne ver ado pt ed t he t echnica l meaning of t he word “ he i rs” a s a ru

l e of l aw. Beach , 118 Ill . 2d at 10, quo ting Le Sourd v. Leinw eber , 41 2 I ll. 100, 105 ( 1952) . A det ermin ation o f the class of heirs i s, t herefor e, go verned by the te stat or ’s i nten tion rathe r than by a f i xe d rul e of l aw. Beach , 11 8 Il

l . 2d at 1 0. U nl es s th e s ettl or’ s i nte nti on t o t he co nt ra ry is “plainly sho wn” in t he t ru st do cument , c ou rt s will rely on t he t echnica l meaning of the term

“h ei rs” b y appl y i ng i t as a ru l e of constructi on. Beach , 118 Ill . 2d at 10.1-06-1713

-16-

The c our t n oted th at th e p oli cy of ea rl y v esti n g of re mai n derswa s s o i

m b edde d th at c our ts conti nue d to adh ere to i

t wi thout ques

tion and rega rdless of the con seq

uen ces . Beach , 118 Ill . 2d at 11- 12. “Ear ly vesting fr ust ra t es int ent ions by ca st ing pr op er t y to st ra nger s”; a cco rd ingly, the court hel d that early

vesti ng of rem ai nders sh ould no l onger be f

oll owed in this state without question
. Beach , 118 Ill . 2d at 12, 14. Because the pri ma ry reas on for earl

y v estin g is no longe r
asi m porta nt a s i t f orm erl y wa s, proof

by the pre pon de ran ceof the ev i de nc e that the s ettl

or int end ed t o us e t he t er m “heir s” in it s no nt ec hnica l sen se is su fficient t o de lay t he v es t ing o f a g ift to a tim e other th an at the g ran tor’s de ath. Beach , 118 Il l . 2d at 14
. The court found that when the trust was considered as a whol e, the documen

ts revolved
around the

wi f e’s l i f e an d dea th rather tha

n the testator’s
. Beach , 118 Ill . 2d at 15. Furt herm ore, because hi s wif

e was 20 years y

ounger t han h

im , t he testat or wo uld hav

e expected t he trust to last for a co nsider able amo unt of t ime, du ring w hich chang es in t he family t hro ugh bir t hs and dea t hs would li kel y occur. Beach , 1 18 Ill. 2d at 15 -1 6. Fina lly, t he fa ct t hat t he t ru st gr ant ed t he w ife t he po we ro f ap po int men t o ve rt he t rus t pr inc ipa l su gg es t ed t ha t t he t es t at o rint en de d t o as ce r t ain hi s h ei rs at her d

ea th b ec au se

one coul d n ot be certai n u nti l af ter s he exerc i se d her p ower of appoi ntm en t whether there w ere a

ny ass ets l ef t to enj oy. Beach , 118 Il

l . 2d at 16
. We ag re e wit h Eliot t hat t he t ru st in this ca se r evo lved ar ou nd t he lives o f the measu ring lives, as t he t ru st in Beach rev ol ve d a roun d the w i f e’ s l i f e. In a ddi ti on, Ha skel

l set the term i na ti on date out as f

ar as the rul e agai

nst perpetuitie s would al

low an d would ha

ve ex pected that changes i n h er f am i l y , i nc l udi ng bi rths a nd d eath s, woul

d occur. T

ha t the trust de si

gna ted f am i l y mem bers as ori gi na l bene f i ciaries a nd n o nonf am i l y mem bers we re nam ed as be ne f i ciaries is al

so si gni f i can t.1-06-1713

-17-

Therefo re, we fin

d t hat t he tr ust vested at t he time of termination, no t at the t im e of Lucy Smi

th’s dea t h. NE C, how ever , c ont ends t hat t he gift -o ver langua ge ( “the lawful heirs o f said Lu cy Smith, per stirpes ”) in

both paragraphs “

FIRST” and “ SECOND” i s i dentic al and sh ould be in terpret ed t he sa me. T her efo re , be cau se t he pa rt ies ag re e t hat t he inco me inter est vest ed a t t he de at h of t he
res pe cti ve Fi rs t Tak er, the pri nc i pal i nte res t sh oul d al so b e i nte rprete d a s v

es ti ng at the d ea

th of the F i rst Take r. Co nt r ar y t o NE C’ s a r gu men t , t he lan gu ag e o f t he t wo se ct io ns is diffe r en t . While “p aragr aph FIR ST” sta

tes tha t the F i rst Take r and the l awf ul he i rs of the F i rst Take r, per stirpes , ar e en ti tl ed to a l i f e i n terest i n th e i n com e i n terest of th e tr us t, “paragraph

SECOND” provides that u pon t ermi

nation of the tru st, t he proceeds wer e to be di stributed either (1) among the Fi rst Taker ’sl awf

ul he i rs, per stirpes , a s to th e th re e F i rs t Ta kersn am ed as mea su ri n g l i v es ; or (2 ) to the F i rst Take r, i f l i vi ng, otherwise to the

Fi rst Take r’sl awf ul he i rs, per stirpes , as to the 14 First Ta ker s no t named a s measu ring lives. Bec aus e Lu cy Smith w as o ne o f the measu ring lives, t he trust provi

ded that the pri

nc i pal would be di stri bute d to the hei

rs of Lucy Sm i th, per stirpes
. The ref ore, the phra se “

the l awf ul he i rs of the s aid Luc

y Sm i th, per stirpes ” ca nnot re fer t o t he same people i

n both paragr aphs “F IRST” and “SECOND. ” In “paragraph FIRST, ” this phrase expr essly includes Lill

ian, bu t in “para gr aph S EC OND ,” it clea rly exclud es Lillian becau se t he t ru st canno t t er minate u nt il at leas t 20 yea rs a fte r he r d eat h. I t was , t her efo re , impo ssible for t he princi pal to vest in ei

ther Lucy Smi

th or Lil li an Smi th, t hrough which

NEC clai ms i ts right t o t rust prin ci pal , sin ce they were both nam

ed as m easuri ng l iv es. See Maiorano v. Virginia Trust Co. ,1-06-1713

-18-

216 Va . 50 5, 2 19 S .E.2 d 88 4 (1 975 ) (b y us i ng dif f ere nt l an gua gei n s pe cif y i ng the ve sti ng of i nc ome and di recti ng th e v esti ng of pri nc i pal , the testator in

tended a d

i f f eren t resul t). NE C re lies on Kellett v. Shepard , 1 39 I ll. 433 (1 891 ), in supp or t of it s ar gument t hat t he phr ase “h ei rs at l aw, per stirpes ” has the s am e m eani ng i n paragraphs

“FIRST” an

d “SECOND.” In Kellett , a w ill pr o vid ed t ha t t he t es t at o r ’s da ug ht er wo uld r ec eiv e a life int er es t in t he inc o me fro m pa rt o f his e st at e. At t he d au ght er ’s d ea t h, t he p rinc ipa l wo uld go t o her child re n, but if “sh e di ed hav

in g no is sue, in

such cas e to go to and desce nd i n revers ion to my

hei rs-at-law.” Kellett , 139 Ill . at 437. T he daugh ter died wi

thout is sue, so the court had to determin e whether the testator’s “

he i rs-at-l aw” were de

term i ne d at the tim e of death of the testator or hi

s da ugh ter. The c our t n oted th at or di n ari l y , the w ord s “

h ei rs ” or “ h ei rs -a t-l aw ” a reus ed to de si gn ate pe opl e w h o an sw er ed th at des cri

pti on at th e dea th of th e te sta tor b ec au se

th e w ord “ h ei r,” i n i ts tec hn i cal i m port, a ppl i esto the pe rs ons appoi nte d by l aw to succ ee d to the e sta

te i n c as e of i ntestacy . Kellett

, 13 9 I ll. a t 44 2. “H en ce wh er e t he wo r d o cc ur s in a will, it will be he ld t o ap ply to th ose wh o are h ei rsof th e te sta tor a t h i s dea th , un l es s th e i n ten ti on of th e te sta tor to ref er to those who shal

l b e hi s hei

rs at a period subse quent to his death is pl ai nl y m anifes ted in the wil l.” Kellett , 1 39 I ll. at 442 . T he co ur t fou nd t hat it “is no pr oo f of su ch co nt ra ry inte nt ion t hat t he da ugh ter, at the e xp i

rati on of wh ose l i f e-e sta te the di stri

bu ti on wasto be

mad e, w ashe

rs el f one of t he heirs at law, ” no r d oe s it mak e a d iff er ence whet her t hos e who ar e heirs at t he t ime of t he testator’s death are l i vi ng or dead w

hen the peri

od of d i stri buti on arri ve s. Kellett

, 139 Il l . at 443. Citing t he pr efer ence for ear ly vesting o f remainde r e st at es, t he co ur t held t hat altho ugh t he t ru st ee he ld t he lega l tit le, e quit able t itle wa s vest ed in t he heirs at t he t ime of t he t est at or ’s de at h,1-06-1713

-19-

sub j ect to di ve stm en t if the daugh

ter ha d ch i l dren
. Kellett

, 139 Il l . at 443. Fur t her mor e, t he inco me of t he pr incipal fund w as t o g o t o t he t est at or ’s wido w du ring li fe an d after her death, “in

reversi on to my hei rs at law.” Kellett

, 139 Il l . at 448. Th

e court note d that if

the he i rs at l aw de si gnate d by the wi l l are thos e a t the res pe cti ve pe riodsof dis tributi on, then the hei

rs at law at the widow’s death m igh t not be the sam

e as the he irs a

t law at th e daugh ter ’s de ath . It was

morere as on ab l e to a ss

um e th at th e te sta tor i n ten de d to l ea v e b oth port ions to the sam

e people than

to assum e that he i ntended “ hei rs at law” to have one

me ani ng at t he t er minatio n of t he da ught er ’s life est at e and ano t her meaning at t he t er minatio n of t he widow’s l i f e estate. Kellett

, 139 Il l . at 448. NE C also re lies on McKibben v. Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank, 365 Il

l . 369 (1 937). In McKibben , th e te sta

tor devi se d the b ul k of he r es tateto a tru ste e, w

hi ch woul d hol d i

t i n tr us t f or he rgr an dc hild r en . T he t rus t wa s s et t o t er minat e w he n t he yo un ge st gr an dc hildliving at t he t ime
o f t he t es t at o r ’s de at h t ur ne d 3 5. T he t es t at o r ’s so n, wh o wa s d isinh er it ed , alle ge d t ha t t his pr ovisio n of t he will violat ed t he r ule ag ainst per pet uit ies beca use it cr eat ed a co nt ingent
r ema ind er pu r su an t t o wh ich t he eq uit ab le e st at e mig ht no t ve st un t il a p er io d o f t ime p as t a life in bei ng pl us 21 y ears. The court not ed that the law f avors the earl

y v estin g of an i nterest and that
an es tatewi l l ve st a t the ea rl i es t pos si bl e ti me a nd wi l l be he l d to ves t at the d ea

th of the tes tator unl ess som e later ti me i s cl earl y ex pres sed i n the wi l l
. McKibben , 36 5 I ll. a t 37 4. T he co ur t he ld th at a t th e dea th of th e te sta tor, t h e i m med i ate l eg al estate v ested i n th e tr us tee an d th e i m med i ate bene f i cial i ntere st ve sted i

n the thre e gran

dch i l dren who were then

l i vi ng. McKibben , 365 Ill . at 375 . “ Th e d ef

err i ng of the en j oy men t of the pri nc i pal , f or re as ons

of the tes tat[or] an

d n ot f or1-06-1713

-20-

reasons personal

to the le gatee or devisee , does not pr even t t he i mm edi ate vestin

g of the estate.” McKibben , 36 5 I ll. a t 37 5. Be ca us e t he r ema ind er ve st ed at t he de at h o f t he t es t at o r , t he rule agai nst perpetui

tie s di d not ap pl y . McKibben , 365 Il

l . at 373. McKibben is dist inguishable be cau se t he bene ficiaries we re a sp ecific gr ou p o f peo ple, and the in come b enef

ic ia ries were al so the remai

nderm en, whi ch supported the court ’s decisi on that t he pr inc ipa l ve st ed in t he gr an dc hild r en wh en t he t rus t wa s c r ea t ed
. Fu r t he r mo r e, wh ile t he t ime for dist ribut ion in McKibben cou l d b e dete rm i n ed to a d ef i n i te c al en da r d ate , the te

rm i n ati on da te of the Haskel

l trust was uncertai

n. Most im

port ant, the Kellett

and McKibben co ur t s re lied on t he pr efer ence for ear ly vesting, which o ur sup re me co ur t late r fo und fr equ ent ly f ru st ra t es w hat t he ordi na ry settlor woul d i

nten d. Beach , 118 Il

l . 2d 1. Eli ot al so argues that t he use of the phrase “

per stirpes ” to modif

y “ la wful hei rs” i ndicates t hat Has kell intend ed t o k eep t he t ru st pr incipal within her famil y. Acco rd ing t o E liot , by using the wor ds “

per stirpes ” to modif

y “ la wful hei rs,” Haskel

l de mons trat ed an i ntent that where a First Ta ker ’s heir did no t sur vive to t he t er minatio n dat e, t hat heir’s des cend ant s wo uld t ake by
r ep r es en t at io n. Ot he rwis e, t he t er m “ per stirpes ” i s m

ean i ngl ess . In suppor t o f h

is argum ent, E li ot cites Maiorano , 216 V a. 505 , 219 S.E.2 d 884. I n Maiorano , the te sta

tor’ s ch i l dr en

h ad a l i f e i n terest i n th e i n com e f rom th e tr us t, w h i ch wa s to t er minate 2 1 year s aft er t he de at h of t he last sur vivor of his childr en. Upo n t er minatio n of t he trust , the prin

ci pal was to be “di

vi ded per stirpes

among t he issue of my thr ee c hildren. ” T he
co ur t fou nd neit her co nst ru ct ion no r e xt rinsic evide nce w as ne ces sar y to asc er t ain the intent of t he t est at or t hat t he pr incipal vest ed 2 1 year s aft er t he de at h of his last sur viving child becau se t he1-06-1713

-21-

provisi on that t he trust would termi nate 21 y ears af ter t he death of

the last survi

vor of hi s chi

ldren
wasuna m bi guous. Maiorano , 2 16 V a. at 510 , 2 19 S .E .2 d at 888 . Fu rt her mor e, re fut ing t he
ar gument t hat t he pr incipal sho uld ves t in the s ame manner as t he inco me, t he co ur t held t hat t he trust ’s use of

the addi tional la nguage “ per stirpes ” “is a clea r r efer ence t o t he fut ur e beyo nd t he li ves of hi s grandch

il dren, who were i

n be in g when the wi ll was exe cuted.” Maiorano , 216 Va. at 51 1, 21 9 S
. E
. 2d at 88 8. T his ma nife st ed an int en t t o en su r e t ha t a p o r t io n o f his e st at e w o uld provi de f or rem ote desc endan

ts. Maiorano , 216 Va. at 511, 219 S.E.2d at 888. “It is an obvious eff ort to vest the pri

nci pal in a di ff erent man ner f rom the i ncom e.” Maiorano , 216 Va. at 511, 21 9 S
. E
. 2d at 88 8. T he co ur t fo un d it “o bvio us ” t ha t t he t es t at o r , by u sing diffe r en t lan gu ag e in spe cifyi ng t he ves t ing o f income and in direc t ing t he ves t ing o f principa l, inte nded different
resu l ts, i.e. , a postponem

en t of vesti ng of the pri nc i pal bey ond the ti me wh en the i nc ome ve sted. Maiorano , 216 Va. at 512, 219 S.E.2d at 889. We f in d that Eli ot dem

onstrated by a preponderan ce of the ev

ide nce that the trust vested when it termi nated. Therefore, Li

ll ia n MacL enn

on could n

ot bequeath an

in terest in the pri

nci pal to NEC. III. CONCLUSION For the f oregoi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm the tri al court’s gran t of El i ot’s m otion f or sum mary judg ment a nd de nial of t he Ne w E ngland C ons er vat or y of Mus ic’s mot ion. Af fi rmed. QUINN , P.J., an

d NEVIL LE, J., c oncu

r.