Court Opinion

ID: 9651380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:17:12.447535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:32.905214
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I respectfully dissent. I would find as a fact that the Miller Trust was not intended as a will substitute. Unlike a will, which does not immediately transfer ownership and can be changed or revoked before death, transfer of property to the Trust is immediately effective and cannot be changed. As a result, I would affirm the assessment of transfer taxes on the irrevocable conveyance from the settlor to the Trust.
The majority analyzes this case through statutory construction. In contrast, I view this as a matter of fact finding. Although we sit in our appellate jurisdiction, we function as a trial court. We make findings of fact and conclusions of law based on stipulations of the parties and the record as a whole. Here, the parties did not stipulate as to whether the Trust was intended as a will substitute; therefore, we must make that finding of fact.
The majority concludes that the subjective intent of the settlor controls. However, as fact finder I would also consider the instrument and how it functions. On transfer to the Trust, legal title to the property here leaves the settlor and never returns. Also, the settlor can never change her plans as to disposition of the property. In these significant ways the Trust is not like a will. Further, I would give greater weight to the objective evidence of the instrument and its operation, and I would give less weight to the self-serving testimony of subjective intent.
There are additional reasons supporting my approach to fact-finding. First and foremost, my proposed finding is consistent with legal authority that an irrevocable trust, like the Trust here, is not a will *956substitute. See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 11 cmt. b (2003) (revocable trust is will substitute), § 25 cmt. a (revocable trust widely used as legally accepted substitute for will); Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 7.1 cmt. a (2003) (irrevocable trusts do not serve the function of a will).
Second, my proposed finding is more practical. In this regard, I entirely agree with the Commonwealth that relying solely on self-serving declarations of subjective intent is unworkable. In sum, based on my proposed finding that the Trust was not intended as a will substitute, I would affirm the assessment of transfer taxes.