Title: In Re Estate of Burmeister
Citation: 225 Kan. 807, 594 P.2d 226
Docket Number: 50,399
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 5, 1979

225 Kan. 807 (1979)
594 P.2d 226
In the Matter of the Estate of Roy F. Burmeister, deceased.
No. 50,399

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 5, 1979.
Kenneth P. Rockhill, of Eureka, was on the brief for the appellant, The Fourth National Bank &amp; Trust Company of Wichita.
Ronald C. Myers, of Chase &amp; Myers, of Eureka, was on the brief for the appellee, trustee for the unborn lawful issue of Stephen K. Forbes and David Forbes, pro se.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the district court holding that certain disclaimers to a will were invalid, void, and of no force and effect. The appellant is the Fourth National Bank &amp; Trust Company of Wichita, trustee of two trusts under the will. The appellee is Ronald C. Myers, the court appointed trustee for the unborn lawful issue of the individuals attempting to disclaim under the will.
The case is before us on an agreed statement of facts which is summarized as follows:
Roy F. Burmeister died testate on February 1, 1977, and was survived by his wife, Margaret Burmeister, and four grandchildren, Thomas, Stephen, David, and Deborah. The will was admitted to probate and two testamentary trusts came into being, the Roy F. Burmeister Trust and the Margaret Burmeister Trust. The testamentary provisions relevant to the matters before us are as follows:
On October 28, 1977, within nine months after the death of the *809 decedent, two of the grandchildren (Stephen K. and David Forbes) filed disclaimers as follows:
On June 2, 1978, appellee Ronald C. Myers, a member of the bar of Greenwood County, was appointed trustee to represent the unborn lawful issue of both Stephen K. Forbes and David Forbes (neither individual had lawful issue at the time, or, apparently, any immediate anticipation of acquiring any). Trustee Myers filed his written defenses to the petition for final settlement and said petition was transferred to the district court for determination. The district court heard the petition for final settlement and held:
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in holding the disclaimers of Stephen K. and David Forbes to be invalid, void and of no force and effect. By virtue of this determination, the court did not reach the question to which the parties devote the major portion of their briefs; namely, whether the disclaimers are effective as to the unborn issue of the disclaimants. We will first consider whether the district court erred in holding the disclaimers to be invalid. The Act on Disclaimer to Succession, K.S.A. 59-2291 et seq., in relevant part, provides:
K.S.A. 59-2291:
K.S.A. 59-2292:
K.S.A. 59-2293:
....
There is a paucity of case law on the question before us. The vast bulk of the law of decedents' estates involves persons attempting to gain a share or increase their share of the estate rather than to divest themselves of their interest. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but the case law indicates the litigants are usually concerned with more worldly interests.
Much could be written on precisely what type of future interest the disclaimants had. This determination is unnecessary as K.S.A. 59-2291 provides a person may disclaim any "interest," which is exactly what the disclaimants disclaimed. What, if anything, the disclaimants might ultimately receive was subject to change, but the disclaimers divested the disclaimants of "any and all right, title and interest" in the trusts. We have no hesitancy in concluding the district court erred in holding that the disclaimers were "invalid, void, and of no force and effect." The disclaimers were effective as to their makers, Stephen K. Forbes and David Forbes, and persons claiming by, through or under them.
Although, as previously stated, the district court did not reach the question as to the effect of the disclaimers on the unborn issue of the disclaimants, little would be gained by remanding this matter to the district court for this determination. The facts are *811 stipulated and the issue is a question of law. K.S.A. 59-2293 provides that a disclaimer is binding upon the disclaimant and "all parties claiming by, through or under him or her." Would the unborn issue be claiming by, through or under the disclaimants? We must look to the key provisions of the will to answer this question.
1. Upon the death of the decedent's widow, Margaret, the trustee is to accumulate the income and invest it until the death of George Forbes (father of grandchildren) and Joyce Forbes (adoptive mother of grandchildren), or until the youngest grandchild reaches age thirty-five, whichever event occurs last.
2. When the events stated in the preceding paragraph have occurred, the trustee shall transfer the trust estate to the four named grandchildren or to the then living issue of any deceased grandchild, per stirpes and not per capita. No issue of the grandchild may receive a share until achieving age twenty-one. If a grandchild is deceased at the time of the distribution and leaves no lawful living issue, then his or her share is divided among the surviving grandchildren, or if any of them be deceased, then the division goes to the lawful living issue.
We conclude the lawful issue of the named grandchildren have the independent right, by virtue of the language of the will, to take at the time of distribution of the trust estate if such issue have outlived the named grandchild-parent. By so surviving their parent, the issue have independent rights to their parent's share, as well as an interest in the share of one or more of the other grandchildren (aunts or uncles) who may have died without surviving lawful issue. Such issue would not be taking by, through or under the parent, but would be taking, pursuant to the will, by having outlived the parent. If the disclaiming grandchildren survive to the time their share would be distributed to them but for their disclaimers, their issue would be precluded from participation in the trust estate. The disclaimers, however, cannot affect the aforestated independent right of the unborn issue.
This resolves the matters before us. In conclusion, however, it should be stated that there is no legal reason to continue the trust for the unborn issue of the disclaimants. Having determined that such unborn issue have an independent right under the will, the appellant-trustee bank has the fiduciary duty to protect their interests. It would be an unnecessary expense to the trust estate to *812 continue the present arrangement of a separate trustee for the unborn issue of the disclaimants.
The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.