Opinion ID: 2087782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Settlors had General Charitable Intent.

Text: We must next consider whether the settlor, or settlors in this case, had general charitable purposes, or what is recognized at common law as general charitable intent. See Iowa Code § 633A.5102(2) (recognizing the settlor must have general charitable purposes); Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 290 (noting the court must next [d]etermine whether settlor had a general charitable intent  his purpose was not to benefit or accomplish one specific object). Similar to our evaluation of impracticability and impossibility, there are no hard and fast rules to determine whether the settlors had general charitable intent. Miller v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 224 Md. 380, 168 A.2d 184, 189 (1961). Instead, we must evaluate all the relevant facts and circumstances, which may include extrinsic evidence not included in the trust document, Nat'l Soc'y of Daughters of Am. Revolution v. Goodman, 128 Md.App. 232, 736 A.2d 1205, 1210 (Md.1999), and we will make an effort to find a general charitable intent when possible, Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of N. Carolina v. Unknown & Unascertained Heirs, 311 N.C. 644, 319 S.E.2d 239, 242 (1984). It is hard to define general charitable intent. Perhaps the best explanation embraces the concept that it would not reject the continuation of the trust when a particular purpose of the trust fails. This concept draws on several cases where we have recognized the lack of a forfeiture or reversion clause supports a finding of general charitable intent. See, e.g., Mary Franklin Home for Aged Women v. Edson, 193 Iowa 567, 571, 187 N.W. 546, 549 (1922). As we noted earlier, there is no such clause in this case. But there is a clause, in fact several clauses, in the trust that specifically indicate the trust is to fund the garden's improvement and maintenance at the original surveyed location. Both warranty deeds stated the trust fund shall be used in connection with improvements [for the garden] upon the tract of real estate hereinafter described, as follows: [legal description of garden location]. They also referred to the funds being used for the maintenance of the park area herein described. Such specificity is normally a strong argument that the settlors had specific, rather than general, charitable intent. Nevertheless, our previous cases have indicated that unless the specific purpose is the primary, dominate or essential purpose, cy pres may still be applied. For example, we have stated that, if the mode of application is such an essential part of the gift that you cannot distinguish any general purpose of charity, but are obliged to say that the mode of doing a charitable act was the only one the testator intended or at all contemplated, and that he had no general intention of giving his money to charity, then the court cannot, if the particular mode of doing it fails, apply the money cy pres. Hodge v. Wellman, 191 Iowa 877, 883-84, 179 N.W. 534, 537 (1920) (citation omitted). In other words, if the specific purpose of the trust is so essential that it becomes the dominate purpose of the trust, then there is no other general purpose of charity that can be fulfilled cy pres. See id. (What, then, was the dominate purpose of the testator?); Mary Franklin Home, 193 Iowa at 574, 187 N.W. at 549 (looking into the general or dominate purpose of the donor). The location of the garden and fountain was certainly important to the settlors. They felt it provided the ideal setting. But the record discloses no other reason, personal or unique to the settlors, that existed for their choice. Importantly, the garden was not established by the Kolbs to memorialize an event that occurred at the designated location. Moreover, the appellee's testimony that the settlors would not have wanted the trust funds to be spent on the garden at any other location is contradicted by his actions as trustee. He permitted trust funds to buy property for the school district, and he initially supported a petition to relocate the garden. While we must remain focused on the settlors' intentions, these actions discredit the trustee's testimony regarding their intentions. Furthermore, the settlors named the trust the James Kolb Memorial Trust Fund, and indicated in all the documents an intent to benefit the City of Storm Lake, or that the trust was for the use and benefit of the City of Storm Lake, Iowa. Under such circumstances, we do not believe funding the garden at the surveyed location was essential, or that it was the dominate or primary purpose. Instead, the settlors' primary or dominate purpose was to perpetually honor their grandson and benefit the City. This is evidence of `a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes,' and demonstrates the designated site was not part of the broader trust purposes. Simmons, 256 N.W.2d at 227 (quoting the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, § 399). Finally, we our guided by our answer to the ultimate question: whether, under the circumstances, would the Kolbs, the settlors, have wanted the trust to continue in light of the changes brought on by Project Alwaysis? See Nat'l Soc'y of Daughters of Am. Revolution, 736 A.2d at 1210 (describing this as the pertinent inquiry when determining whether the [settlor] possessed a general charitable intent). The record clearly indicates the settlors wanted the garden and fountain to be permanent additions in the City's park. They were, in the words of appellee, created by the blood and guts of the settlors, constructed to withstand the tests of time, and funded by what seems to be an everlasting trust. No doubt they would have been disappointed about the plans that required the relocation of the garden and fountain, and their ultimate destruction. But we think they would have been even more disappointed in the complete failure of the trust and their eleemosynary ends. After all, the settlors specifically indicated in their original agreement with the City that the trust was to be a permanent fund. As a result, we believe the settlors would have preferred the trust to continue under cy pres if they were alive today, so that the City can continue to display the flowers in the lake side park in honor of the memory of their deceased grandson.