Court Opinion

ID: 9668312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:09:18.749232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.561508
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. When it is possible to so do, we ascribe meaning to each clause of an instrument. Only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between two clauses must one give way to another. See In Re Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596, 832 S.W.2d 808 (1992). When there is no conflict among the provisions, all provisions should be taken into consideration in determining the intent of the testator. Hughes, Guardian v. Edwards, 198 Ark. 673, 130 S.W.2d 713 (1939). In the trust instrument at issue, there is no irreconcilable conflict among the clauses. The Chancellor erred in failing to give effect to the provision terminating the trust when the youngest beneficiary reached age 25 or when each beneficiary completed his or her formal education, which ever occurred first. First, the majority permits disregard of the termination provision because the trust instrument allowed the trustee to terminate the trust at any time. I certainly agree with the quotation from the Restatement (Second) of the Law on Trusts § 334 (2d ed. 1959) that appears in the majority opinion as follows: “If by the terms of the trust the trust is to continue only until the expiration of a certain period or until the happening of a certain event, the trust will be terminated upon the expiration of the period or the happening of the event. [Emphasis supplied.]” The event in this case was the completion of formal education or the reaching of age 25 by the beneficiaries. While it could possibly be argued that the language of section 2. of the instrument provided for termination of the trust only upon distribution, such an interpretation files in the face of the requirement that “the Trustee shall deliver the entire remaining principal to the above named [beneficiaries] absolutely, and this trust shall then terminate.” That language leaves little doubt that the settlor-trustee simply failed to do that which he was required to do by the instrument when the trust purpose had been served and the trust was at an end. The majority opinion suggests that the settlor could terminate the trust after it terminated by its own terms. In my view, that is an illogical proposition. Secondly, the majority holds it was not the intent of the settlor that the proceeds be distributed to the beneficiaries because the trust was not intended to provide for the livelihood of the beneficiaries. There is nothing inconsistent about the expression of that intent and the clear statement that the principal was to be distributed to the beneficiaries at the specified time. Even if the language cited could be said to apply to the trust principal after termination of the trust and distribution of the remaining principal to the beneficiaries, nothing in the record suggests that the beneficiaries needed or intended to use that which had been the trust principal for their livelihood. The Chancellor’s decision should be reversed and the case remanded for an order requiring distribution of the trust assets to the beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument. I respectfully dissent. Imber, J., joins in this opinion.