Opinion ID: 2369265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The widow's estate.

Text: The widow contends (1) that she is entitled to the custody and management of the corpus of the trust estate during her life, and (2) that she is entitled to an absolute estate in the residue. The will, as we read it, plainly does not give an interest or estate of such wide extent to the widow. The residue of the estate is given and bequeathed to trustees. In the fourth section of the will, the testator named and appointed a bank and an individual as trustees. He directed that the trust or trusts    be at all times administered by two Trustees, one of whom shall be a corporation and the other of whom shall be an individual. The testator proceeded in the fifth section to give to his trustees not in limitation of the ordinary powers of trusteeship but in addition thereto, the following powers: relating to the management of the trusts. In particular, he urged the trustees to hold shares of The Warner & Swasey Company and American Telephone and Telegraph Company without creating any legal obligation to so do. The first beneficiary of the trust under E(1) is the widow to whom the trustees are directed to pay the entire net income from said trust estate during her life. To this point surely the widow gained no more than a life interest in the income. There follows the direction for invasion of the principal (unless waived by the widow) to meet the required aggregate payment to the widow of at least $30,000 annually. The testator thus created a floor of $30,000 on the cash his widow should be entitled to receive each year, first from income and the balance from principal. The testator chose, as he had the power to choose, to place a limit, namely $30,000 less net income, on the right of the trustees to draw on the principal for payment to the widow. To this point we find the widow was given the net income for life plus a limited right to invade the principal. This is the extent of her interest in the trust property. In E(2) the testator explained the reason for making no provision for his son during his widow's life. The gift under E (1) was made with his son in mind and with every confidence that my said wife will in her own discretion and according to her own wishes adequately care for our said son. The widow gains nothing from E(2). Upon the death of the widow the provisions for the son during his life come into operation under E(3). On the death of the widow and son the charities under E(4) take all of said trust estate which shall then remain    both principal and unexpended income. It is argued that in view of the right to invade the principal (E(1)) and the gift of all of said trust estate which shall then remain. the widow thereby acquired an absolute estate in the property free from trust and free from any interests of the son and the charities. On behalf of the widow it is said that by reason of the right to invade principal under E(1), the entire estate was placed at disposal of the widow. Undoubtedly the entire estate is subject to repeated annual withdrawals, but only to the limited extent stated in the will. The widow may not demand more from the trustees, and the trustees may not give to her more from the estate than the amount required to meet the stated $30,000. Right to draw on principal to a limited extent each year is not the right of disposal of principal generally. The argument is further made that which shall then remain in E(4) also gives to the widow, entitled to the income, the right to unlimited disposal of the principal. Obviously on this theory the provision for the son after his mother's death would have no certainty whatsoever. The situation before us differs widely from the typical gift of a small estate to the widow with whatever remains to the children. In such a case the right to dispose of the principal is recognized in application of the principle that the intent of the testator controls. Stewart v. Stewart's Estate, 148 Me. 421, 94 A.2d 912, heavily relied upon by the widow, presents a like situation within the framework of a trust for use and benefit of testator's son, with the same or what remains to his grandson. In the case at bar we have the carefully drawn trust, the direction to pay net income to the widow, and the right to use principal to a limited extent only. There are the gifts over, after the widow's life interest, for the benefit of their helpless son during his life. The intent of the testator stands forth in the will in straightforward words and without ambiguilty. The widow takes the net income for life with a limited right to draw on principal and no more under Clause E.