Opinion ID: 1804064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpretation of the Trust Language.

Text: We have recognized that in interpreting the language of testamentary trusts, the intent of the testator governs. First Nat'l Bank v. Mackey, 338 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Iowa 1983); In re Work Family Trust, 260 Iowa 898, 901, 151 N.W.2d 490, 492 (1967). The meaning accorded to the language used is to be its usual and ordinary meaning. In re Manahan's Estate, 255 Iowa 1060, 1066, 125 N.W.2d 135, 138 (1963). We must apply these rules in deciding whether Mid-Iowa Council followed W. Seymour Lacy's wishes with respect to the use of the distributions it received from the trust. In urging that it did comply with the testator's wishes, Mid-Iowa Council points to evidence that Oskaloosa's pro rata share of the council's district-wide annual costs exceeded the council's annual distribution from the Lacy trust. Thus, it argues the full amount of the annual distribution was spent on scouting programs in Oskaloosa. The flaw in this argument is that, in carrying out its mission, Mid-Iowa Council was obligated to provide some level of funding for the district-wide scouting programs that benefited Oskaloosa scouts had the Lacy trust not existed. The council's use of the trust distributions served to subsidize all scouting programs throughout the district. The district court found and we agree that it was the intention of the testator to give an advantage to the youth of Oskaloosa which would be over and above the benefits received by young people in other communities of the same size. We are convinced that Mid-Iowa Council was required to expend all of the annual distributions from the Lacy trust in a manner that discretely and directly benefited boy scout activities in Oskaloosa. The district court correctly concluded that the use of the trust distributions made by Mid-Iowa Council clearly did not accord with that requirement.