Court Opinion

ID: 9667812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:55:31.06641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.634681
License: Public Domain

Peterson, Justice
(dissenting).
The cardinal purpose in construing a trust, as the majority opinion acknowledges, is to ascertain the intent of the settlor — in this case, to ascertain and give effect to the dispositive intent expressed in the trust by the use of the word, “issue.” The intent of the settlor in the use of that word of art must be considered in terms of its meaning and usage in 1921, when the trust was executed, not in terms of any different meaning or usage in 1976.
The parties agree that the trust was drafted by an experienced attorney, skilled in trust and estate law and accordingly knowledgeable in the limitation inherent in the word, “issue.” The use of that word 50 and more years ago clearly excluded illegitimate offspring, thus excluding the child born out of wedlock to the settlors’ granddaughter. This was the settled rule of the common *249law. See, Restatement of Property §§ 265, 292; 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, 447; 2 Kent, Commentaries (13 ed.), § 212; 4 Kent, Commentaries (13 ed.), §§ 413-417. An annotation at 2 A. L. R. 930, 972 (which was published in 1919), discussing the meaning of the term “issue” where used as a word of purchase, contained this preface:
“It is a generally recognized rule (except in Connecticut) that the word ‘issue’ must be taken prima facie to mean legitimate children, and does not include illegitimate offspring unless a different intention appears from the context [citing cases].”
This state’s statutory canons of construction in effect in 1921 provided that “issue,” as applied to the descent of estates, included all the lawful lineal descendants of the ancestor. Gen. Stat. 1913, § 9412(8). It surely would not be assumed that a draftsman of a testamentary instrument, or a trust having the same purposes and effect, would use the word “issue” differently than the meaning so ascribed to it for intestate succession. It just as surely would not be assumed that a draftsman of such an instrument would intend it to have whatever changing meaning others might at some future date attach to it.
The majority opinion, however, suggests that the settlors’ intent is “ambiguous” because the trust instrument in one paragraph employed such words as “legally adopted,” “legal child,” and “legal issue.” This is indeed a slender reed upon which to vault to a conclusion that a settlor, contrary to its then-settled meaning, intended the unmodified word “issue” to include an illegitimate child. The rule of law articulated in the majority opinion represents a significant departure from the acknowledged cardinal purpose when it states: “When there is some doubt, either from family circumstances, the behavior or knowledge of a settlor, or from the trust instrument itself, this court will hold that illegitimate issue are to be included as issue.”
The trust instrument is all that is in evidence, and the paragraph upon which that rule of construction is imposed is this:
*250“Wherever in this Trust Deed it is provided or directed that income or rents, or any share thereof, or any property or interest in property should be paid, turned over or given to the child or children or issue of either of the said Edward C. Davies or Florence E. Sanaker, such designation of a child or children or issue of a child or children, shall include and shall be deemed to include any child or children heretofore or hereafter legally adopted by either of the said Edward C. Davies or the said Florence E. Sanaker, respectively, * * * as the case may be, who shall have so legally adopted such child or children; and such legally adopted child and its issue shall be entitled to the same rights under this instrument and the trust hereby created as if such adopted child were the legal child borne to or begotten by the said Edward C. Davies or the said Florence E. Sanaker, respectively, as the case may be; and the legal issue of any child so legally adopted shall be deemed the legal issue of the person so adopting such child.”
This sentence-paragraph, of course, is directed exclusively to the rights of an adopted child and the issue of such adopted child; more specifically, to a “legally adopted” child, such child and its “issue” to be accorded the same rights as if such adopted child were “the legal child” of settlors’ own son or daughter. Yet, the majority opinion would derive from this one sentence an intent to grant benefits to an illegitimate child. The recurring use of the modifying word, “legal,” in this one sentence, much less than implying a broader meaning to the unmodified word, “issue,” serves instead to underscore the settlors’ intent to exclude one who is “illegitimate,” i. e., not “legal.” Having used the words “legal” or “legally” seven times in that sentence (although omitting that adjective once in the initial reference to the “issue” of an adopted child), it concludes with words having the same effect, “* * * and the legal issue of any child so legally adopted shall be deemed the legal issue of the person so adopting such child.” Under the terms of the trust, being deemed the “legal” issue of settlors’ children is of no more significance than *251being deemed their issue, having in mind its meaning and usage in 1921. The words, then, are mere surplusage, probably attributable to the rhythm of its frequent use in 'that complex sentence. It does not reasonably create an ambiguity in the instrument read as a whole. And nothing in the instrument would indicate the settlors’ intent to benefit an illegitimate offspring of his son or daughter. The majority opinion does not resolve the asserted ambiguity in terms of other indications of the settlors’ intent; it simply imposes the court’s intent. We do not, however, have a roving commission to impose what all of us in our own affairs would consider generous and enlightened if we, not they, were the settlors.
There is, in this view, no occasion to consider the issue as to the subsequent adoption out of an excluded offspring.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm.