Court Opinion

ID: 9760401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:52:16.006879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:11.623685
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority, in my opinion, has manufactured an ambiguity which does not exist in order to apply a rule of judicial construction which, in my opinion, does not apply, and has construed the last will of James Reese Kirk to mean something other than what it says.
Mr. Kirk left the contested portion of his estate in trust with the net income to be paid in equal shares to his seven nieces and nephews during the remainder of their natural lives. Upon the death of any one of the seven nieces and nephews, the trustee was directed to determine immediately the value of that portion of the trust estate from which the deceased niece or nephew was entitled to receive the income for life and to distribute it in equal shares to the children of that deceased nephew or niece, and as to that nephew or niece and heirs, the trust “shall be terminated.”
This contest developed because one of the nephews died and a distribution was made to his heirs and the trust terminated as to them. Thereafter, another niece died childless, and a question arose as to whether her portion of the trust estate should go to the surviving nieces and nephews only, or to the surviving nieces and nephews and the heirs of the deceased nephew.
The majority finds an ambiguity in that the language used could mean that upon distribution to the heirs of a nephew or niece, the trust would terminate only as to the portion of the trust estate so distributed.
There was only one trust and one trust estate. The trust estate was designed to provide a lifetime income in equal parts to seven beneficiaries. As each of the seven died, the trust as to that beneficiary and his heirs was terminated by a complete distribution of his allocable portion of the trust estate. Once that distribution was made, the will clearly provides that the deceased nephew or niece, or their heirs, had no further interest in the trust. As to them it was terminated.
Next, the majority speculates about whether the term “survivors,” as used in the will, meant the nieces and nephews who remained alive after any one of them died, or whether it meant the successors in interest so that it would include the heirs of one of the nieces and nephews whose interest in the trust had been earlier terminated by death. The will provided that if one of the nieces and nephews died without children or grandchildren, the share of such niece or nephew in the trust estate should accrue to the beneficiaries of said group of nieces and nephews. It seems reasonably clear to me that the language used refers only to those nieces and nephews who remained alive after the death of a niece or nephew who died childless.
Thus, to me, there is no ambiguity, but the majority, having found one, has proceeded to discover the testator’s real intention by means of judicial construction. It applies the rule that in the absence of a clear intention to make an unequal distribution, the law presumes that a testator intends to treat beneficiaries of the same class equally.
The majority states that nothing in the will indicates any intention to treat any of the grandnephews and grandnieces unequally. In truth, however, there is such an indication.
The children of the first of the seven nieces or nephews to die were to receive the corpus of the estate immediately and would thus have the use of the principal rather than just the income from their portion of the trust estate long before the other grandnephews and grandnieces would have such a privilege. In addition, if *942Mr. Kirk had really wanted to treat all of his grandnephews or grandnieces equally, he would not have made any distributions of the trust estate until all of the original seven nieces and nephews had died, and then he would have made a distribution in equal shares per capita to all of the grandnieces and grandnephews. Instead, they shared per stirpes, which of course means that they did not all receive equal treatment.
We cannot know what Mr. Kirk meant to say, but we know what he said, and the meaning of what he said is clear to me. I would not artificially construe it to mean something else.
COMBS and GANT, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.