Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/321/321mass115.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:32:48+00:00

Document:
FLORENCE M. BEEDE, executrix, vs. OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY & another, trustees, & another.
and provided for transfers of a substantial sum of principal in his behalf and periodical payments of a certain amount of income with provisions against alienation and attachment of his interests, and for a distribution of the fund on his death, could not be attacked collaterally after his death by a petition by the executor of his will that it be adjudged that on his fortieth birthday he had satisfied such provisions of the trust and that the entire fund should have been transferred to him at that time.
The trustee of a fund which was the subject of a compromise agreement, entered into between him and all parties in interest under the trust and approved by a Probate Court under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 204, Section 14, was a proper adversary party to a subsequent petition attacking that decree collaterally.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Middlesex on November 5, 1945.
H. S. Avery, for the petitioner.
J. W. Mahoney, (S. L. Kaplan with him,) for the respondents Old Colony Trust Company and another, trustees.
A. L. Taylor, for the respondent Beede.
DOLAN, J. The petitioner, who is the executrix of the will of Luman J. Beede, brings this petition praying that her testator be declared to have become sober and industrious at a time before his death, and that an order be entered setting over the principal of the trust fund (hereinafter described) created under the will of Abbie S. Beede to the estate of her testator or to her. Demurrers, pleas in bar and pleas in abatement were filed by the respondent trustees under the will of Abbie S. Beede, and by the other respondent, Everett J. Beede. The judge entered interlocutory decrees sustaining the demurrers and pleas, and a final decree dismissing the petition. From these decrees the petitioner appealed.
purpose -- to wit: The income of said fund to be paid to my son, Luman Jefts Beede, each year until he shall reach the age of 35 years; in such payments during each year as the said trustees may deem advisable. If, when my said son has reached the age of 35 years, he shall prove to the satisfaction of the Probate Court that he is sober and industrious, the entire trust fund, both principal and interest, shall thereupon be paid over to him and the trust shall thereupon terminate. If, however, he is not deemed sober and industrious and competent to manage his own affairs, the said trust shall continue until such time as it may be deemed prudent by said Probate Court to terminate the trust as aforesaid, or until the death of my son. In the latter event, should he die without issue, the trust shall thereupon terminate and the principal and interest of said trust fund shall be paid to my said son Everett or his heirs. If, however, my said son Luman dies leaving issue and this trust has not previously terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, then the said trust shall continue for the benefit of said issue until the youngest child of my said son shall have reached the age of 21 years, at which time it shall terminate and the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the heirs of my said son, Luman Jefts Beede." The following provision, which became a part of her will, was made by a codicil thereto: "In clause (b) of Part II of my will I provided that the income of the trust therein mentioned should be paid to my son, Luman Jefts Beede until he shall have reached the age of 35 years. I now order and direct that the said trust shall continue until my son reaches the age of 40 years and that until he reaches said age the said income shall be free from interference or control of his creditors and shall not be anticipated by assignment." The petitioner further alleges that "Luman J. Beede reached the age of 40 years on May 3, 1932, and that for a long time before his death said Luman J. Beede was sober and industrious and had met all the requirements of his mother's will and was entitled to have an order from the Probate Court decreeing the entire principal of the estate to him and that it was the purpose and intention of Luman J.
Beede to petition said court for an order decreeing the entire principal of the estate to him when his sudden and untimely death intervened . . . that there are no surviving issue of said Luman J. Beede . . . [and] that as widow and sole beneficiary under the will of Luman J. Beede she is left without her proper rights in the property of Luman J. Beede."
compromise. On August 3, 1938, the trustees filed another petition under c. 204, Section 14, to compromise certain controversies in accordance with an agreement of compromise in which provision was made for the payment of all accumulated and current income of the trust fund to Luman, after certain deductions, for the transfer of $9,650 from principal to income, to be disbursed in accordance with a schedule of approved disbursements in behalf of Luman, and for the payment to Luman from income otherwise payable to Luman, in each month, of $150 only, the balance of income to be transferred to principal until the principal account was reimbursed for sums transferred therefrom to income under the agreement. This compromise agreement was executed in the manner provided by the statute, and was approved by the Probate Court, with appropriate findings, on August 18, 1938. On July 23, 1942, Luman filed a petition in the Probate Court praying for the revocation of the decree of June 13, 1932, allowing the compromise agreement dated April 28, 1932. On October 22, 1943, after hearing and consideration, a decree was entered in the Probate Court dismissing the petition.
The contentions of the petitioner are, in substance, that under the terms of the will, rightly construed in the light of the provisions of the codicil thereto, Luman became entitled to the principal of the trust fund when he became forty years of age; that the terms must be carried out unless repugnant to law; that the Probate Court was without authority to enter the decrees allowing the agreements of compromise because their terms were inconsistent with those of the will; that the terms of the trust were such that Luman could not by contract properly obtain, as he did, portions of the principal of the trust fund to be disbursed in his behalf; that he could not as matter of law by contract agree that payments to be made to him under the agreement of 1932 should be free from the interference or control of his creditors; and that the Probate Court erred in entering the decree denying Luman's petition for revocation of the decree dated June 13, 1932, allowing the compromise agreement dated April 28, 1932.
It is manifest that the foregoing contentions constitute a collateral attack upon the decrees allowing the agreements of compromise in question, and the decree denying the petition of Luman for the revocation of the decree of June 13, 1932. We sustain none of these contentions. The subject matter of the decrees allowing the agreements of compromise was within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 204, Section 14, which is constitutional. Clarke v. Cordis, 4 Allen 466. Copeland v. Wheelwright, 230 Mass. 131, 138. This being so, the decrees complained of cannot be attacked collaterally. Farquhar v. New England Trust Co. 261 Mass. 209, 212-213, and cases cited. Wilbur v. Hallett, 305 Mass. 554. They are in full force and effect and are a bar to the present proceeding. Cochrane v. Cochrane, 303 Mass. 467, 470. Newburyport Society for Relief of Aged Women v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 310 Mass. 438, 442-443.
The petitioner's contention that the present proceeding is not as to the respondent trustees an adversary one, that they are mere stakeholders and as such cannot be heard, is not sustained. This proceeding is not one brought by the trustees for instructions but is one brought by the petitioner who seeks to set aside the contracts entered into by the trustees with all parties interested in the trust estate, with the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is the duty of the trustees to carry out those contracts in accordance with their terms, and they have a right to be heard in the present proceeding. See Ripley v. Brown, 218 Mass. 33, 35; Doane v. Bigelow, 293 Mass. 406, 409; McKay v. Audubon Society, Inc. 318 Mass. 482, 485.
In view of what we have said above it is unnecessary to consider the demurrers and pleas in abatement of the respondents.
The request of the petitioner for costs and expenses of this appeal is not granted.
Appeals from interlocutory decrees sustaining demurrers and pleas in abatement dismissed.
Interlocutory decrees sustaining pleas in bar affirmed.
[Note 1] The agreement recited that the "controversies" were "particularly with reference to a claim of said Luman J. Beede that, after May 3, 1932, and after proper proceedings, he will be entitled to payment of the entire trust fund to him." -- REPORTER.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.