Title: Matter of Kischel
Citation: 299 N.W.2d 920
Docket Number: 50855
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: October 24, 1980

299 N.W.2d 920 (1980) In the Matter of the Trusteeship under the Emil C. KISCHEL Trust Created by the Last Will and Testament of Emil C. Kischel, Deceased. No. 50855. Supreme Court of Minnesota. October 24, 1980. Rehearing Denied January 21, 1981. Rider, Bennett, Egan &amp; Arundel, Larry R. Henneman and Deborah Z. McNally, Minneapolis, for appellant. Scholle &amp; Scholle and Leslie C. Scholle, Minneapolis, for Lillian Kathleen Barnes. Lindquist &amp; Vennum and John A. Forrest, Minneapolis, for Kevin M. Barnes. *921 Howard McRoberts and Patrick Murray, Minneapolis, for Trustees. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. SCOTT, Justice. This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the Hennepin County District Court construing the terms of a trust created by the last will and testament of Emil C. Kischel. We reverse. The parties stipulated to all material facts. The pertinent portions of the stipulation are as follows: It is only trust 12955 (hereinafter the Howell share) which is involved in this proceeding. Section 8(c) of Emil C. Kischel's will governs the distribution of the Howell share upon the death of Madelon K. Howell (nee Dewey). Section 8(c) provides as follows: The fact that Kischel Miller Barnes predeceased Madelon K. Howell gives rise to the present litigation regarding section 8(c). The trial court held that upon Emil C. Kischel's death Barnes had a vested future interest in the trust and that section 8(c) gave him a power of appointment over the trust. The court further found that Barnes validly exercised the power of appointment. Appellant argues that Barnes' interest in the trust could not vest until the death of Madelon K. Howell. Appellant also argues that the power of appointment is only exercisable after the death of Madelon K. Howell. Appellant, Madelon V. Barnes, argues that she and her brother, Kevin M. Barnes, are entitled to the Howell share on the death of Madelon K. Howell. Respondent, Lillian Kathleen Barnes, Barnes' widow and the mother of Kevin M. Barnes, argues that she is entitled to the Howell share on the death of Madelon K. Howell, pursuant to Barnes' exercise of his testamentary power of appointment. Kevin M. Barnes agrees with the appellant through his guardian ad litem. At issue is whether Kischel M. Barnes, the testator's grandson, had either a vested interest in the trust or possessed a vested power of appointment to dispose of the trust proceeds. As to the first of these questions, appellant argues that Kischel M. Barnes' interest in the trust was contingent on survivorship. In issue is the construction of the following will provisions: and (Emphasis added.) Minnesota favors the vesting of estates unless the interest is manifestly contingent.[1]*923 In re Trust Under Will of Schultz, 215 Minn. 313, 9 N.W.2d 773 (1943). Respondent argues that the will does not expressly make survival a condition precedent and therefore the presumption in favor of vesting requires that the remainder be vested. However, the presumption in favor of vesting is only a rule of construction and is secondary to the plain language of the instrument. In re Hencke's Estate, 220 Minn. 414, 19 N.W.2d 718 (1945); In re Trust Under Will of Schultz, supra. If Barnes' interest were vested, as respondent argues, then his interest would have descended by his will. On the other hand, if Barnes' interest were contingent on survivorship, as appellant argues, then the interest of Barnes would have been extinguished by his death and he therefore would have had nothing to devise. Our primary concern is to give effect to the testator's intent as expressed in the plain language of the will. Levings v. First National Bank and Trust Co., 192 Minn. 143, 225 N.W. 828 (1934). It is clear that Emil C. Kischel did not intend to give his grandson any interest in the trust property unless he survived his mother. Section 8(c) of the will specifically indicates that the issue of Barnes are to take his share if he predeceases Madelon K. Howell. In addition, that section provides that if Madelon K. Howell were to die without surviving issue, her share would go to Florence K. Lankester. A holding that Barnes' interest was vested would ignore the will provisions dealing with the issue of deceased grandchildren and the possible death of Madelon K. Howell without issue. It is the creation of these alternative or substitutionary beneficiaries that indicates the intent not to create a vested remainder.[2]First and American National Bank of Duluth v. Higgins, 208 Minn. 295, 312, 293 N.W. 585, 595 (1940). The other issue is whether the language of the will confers upon Barnes a vested power of appointment over the Howell share. Section 8(c) of the will provides that if Barnes were to die before receiving "all of the properties held for him, the remainder of his share shall upon his decease, be distributed as he shall appoint." (Emphasis added.) When this provision is read in isolation, it appears to confer upon Barnes a vested power of appointment over the entire Howell share. However, in construing a will we cannot give effect to provisions in isolation; we must read the will as a whole and, if possible, give effect to every provision. In re Crosby's Will, 224 Minn. 173, 28 N.W.2d 175 (1947). When we read the above-quoted provision in the context of section 8(c) of the will, it is apparent that the power of appointment is only exercisable after the death of Madelon K. Howell, and then only over that portion of the trust which would go to Barnes. Construing the will in this manner gives effect to the class gift, the grant of the power of appointment, and the will provisions dealing with substitute beneficiaries.[3] *924 Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of appellant.[4] [1] Minn.Stat. § 500.12 (1978) provides that "[f]uture estates are either vested or contingent. They are contingent while the person to whom, or the event upon which, they are limited to take effect remains uncertain." [2] For purposes of this opinion it is unnecessary for us to distinguish between estates which are contingent and those which are vested subject to complete divestment. In either case, Barnes' interest would be extinguished if he predeceased Madelon K. Howell. [3] The will provision providing for the trust proceeds to be "distributed equally among her children" creates a class gift. During the lifetime of Madelon K. Howell the class remains open. It is at least theoretically possible for other members to be added to the class after Barnes' death. Had Madelon K. Howell predeceased Barnes, then the class would have closed at the time of her death, the entire Howell share would have been held by him, and his exercise of the power of appointment would have been valid. [4] The standard of review of findings based on documentary evidence permits this court on appeal to substitute its own reading of the will for that of the trial court. In re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 263 N.W.2d 610 (Minn.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835, 99 S. Ct. 116, 58 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1978), noted in 5 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 541 (1979); In re Trust Known as Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 308 Minn. 221, 243 N.W.2d 302, cert. denied, sub nom. Arms v. Watson, 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S. Ct. 530, 50 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1976).