Opinion ID: 2343373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cy Pres Analysis

Text: Missouri courts hold that to apply the doctrine of cy pres, three requirements must be met. First, the trust in question must be a valid charitable trust. Second, it is or becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to carry out the specific terms of the trust. Finally, the settlor must have established the trust with a general charitable intent. Comfort, 576 S.W.2d at 336, holds that unless and until it is determined that a trust has failed, the question of general or specific charitable intent is irrelevant. If the settlor's intent was specific, the cy pres doctrine cannot be applied. The result would be a reversion for the settlor or the settlor's heirs. Id. [1] The parties agree that a trust was created with a charitable intent and that the trust has failed because the dental school was closed and the Dental Alumni Development Fund no longer exists. The parties maintain that the issue is whether the trust was created with general or specific charitable intent. A general charitable intent exists where there is an intent to assist a certain general type or kind of charity. Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 361 Mo. 857, 237 S.W.2d 143, 145 (1951). General charitable intent is an intent that a gift be continued within the limits of its general purpose and that shall not cease when a particular thing is accomplished. Unquestionably, when the intent is to apply the gift to a continuing problem, there is a general charitable intent. Thatcher, 76 S.W.2d at 683. Gifts made to aid education, science, literature, the poor, the sick, and so on demonstrate general charitable intent. Comfort, 576 S.W.2d at 338. Because most charitable gifts are made to ameliorate a continuing problem, it must be determined whether the donor intended to benefit all those affected by the continuing problem, or only certain of those persons. Id. The grantor's intent is specific when the grantor intended to aid that kind of charity only in a particular way or by a particular method or means and further intended that, if the particular means failed, the gift failed. Id. Dr. Kimbrough's gift to Washington University for the Dental Alumni Development Fund was not for a particular task to be accomplished, but to support dental medicine at Washington University, a profession of which he was deeply proud. The trust document contained no suggestion that the gift should fail if the particular fund ceased to exist. In determining whether the charitable intent of the grantor is specific or general, the Court in Comfort v. Higgins set forth additional factors courts should consider. First, Comfort distinguished between gifts of money and land, finding that courts have viewed gifts of land as strong evidence of an absence of general charitable intent, while monetary gifts suggest general intent. Id. at 338. Dr. Kimbrough gave a gift of money, not real property, thus indicating general charitable intent. The second factor is the existence of a reverter clause associated with the gift. Use of a direction for a reversion to the settlor in the case of failure indicates specific charitable intent, while the absence of a reverter clause supports general charitable intent. Id. Dr. Kimbrough's estate plan included reverter clauses as to the bequests for all of the individuals, which instructed the gifts to go to Washington University; however, it did not include a reverter clause as to the gift to Washington University in the will or trust. The conclusion that a general charitable intent exists is typically reached where the heirs were either specifically excluded or had received other gifts in the will, indicating that no further gifts were included. Id. In his last will and testament, Dr. Kimbrough granted to Margaret Derrick the rest and remainder of his estate if she were living at the time of his death. If she were deceased at the time of his death, Dr. Kimbrough granted to Washington University the rest and remainder of his estate. In his will, Dr. Kimbrough left Louise Obermeyer $5,000 and did not provide for Elizabeth Salmon in his estate plan. The lack of a reverter clause for the charitable gift and the provision for one of his great, great-nieces are indicative of Dr. Kimbrough's general charitable intent. The third relevant factor is whether the charitable gift was made in trust or outright. A gift in trust is indicative of specific charitable intent, while a gift made outright indicates general intent. Id. at 339. The trust provides that at the death of the survivor of the life beneficiaries, the trust is to be paid to Washington University free from trust. Dr. Kimbrough's gift free from trust suggests general charitable intent. The heirs argue that the use of the language, for the exclusive use and benefit, requires a finding of specific charitable intent. Where the terms of a charitable trust direct a means of execution or dedicate the fund to a type of charity forever or for no other purpose, or upon condition that it be applied to no other purpose, these provisions do not necessarily demonstrate absence of a general charitable intent. Ramsey, 237 S.W.2d at 146. In Ramsey , a grant for the sole purpose of building and equipping and maintaining a City hospital and no other did not necessarily show absence of a general charitable intent. Id. Such provisions do not, ipso facto, show an intent that the trust should cease in the event of impossibility or impracticability of using the specified means. Id.