Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Brody
174 Conn. 616 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Rule Against Perpetuities invalidates any property interest that does not vest, if at all, within 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest. When a gift to a class is involved, all members of that class must satisfy the rule, and the possibility of new members joining the class after the measuring lives renders the gift void, especially if later life estates are inseverable from the void remainder.
Facts:
- On August 6, 1920, William C. Skinner, a resident of Hartford, executed his will.
- William C. Skinner died on March 8, 1922, leaving a large estate and survived by three children (Roberts K. Skinner, Marjorie R. S. Trumbull, William C. Skinner, Jr.) and five grandchildren.
- Article fourteenth of Skinner's will created a testamentary trust from one-third of his residuary estate, directing the trustee to pay the income equally to his three children during their lives and the life of each of them.
- Upon the death of Skinner's last surviving child, the will directed the trustee to pay the entire trust income equally to his grandchildren during their lives.
- Upon the death of Skinner's last surviving grandchild, the will directed the trust to terminate and the remaining fund to be divided equally per capita among his great-grandchildren.
- All three of Skinner's children have since died.
- One grandchild, Roberts K. Skinner, Jr., died in 1973, survived by three children (Skinner's great-grandchildren), which led to questions about the disposition of his share of the trust income.
- The trust document did not specify the disposition of a grandchild's income share upon their death prior to the termination of the trust.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, successor trustee of the trust, brought an action in the Superior Court in Hartford County, seeking a decree advising the trustee as to its rights, powers, and authority regarding the trust administration.
- The appearing and nondefaulted parties joined in a stipulation of facts.
- The parties requested that the Superior Court reserve the action for the advice of the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
- The Superior Court granted the request and reserved the case for the advice of the Supreme Court with respect to eleven specific questions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a testamentary trust provision creating successive class gifts to grandchildren and then great-grandchildren violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, rendering both the remainder interest and the preceding life estate invalid, when the class of grandchildren is open at the time the trust is created?
Opinions:
Majority - House, C. J.
Yes, the testamentary trust provisions creating successive class gifts to grandchildren and then great-grandchildren violate the Rule Against Perpetuities, invalidating both the remainder interest for great-grandchildren and the preceding life estate for grandchildren. The court affirmed that the Rule Against Perpetuities is a positive mandate of law, not a rule of construction, which must be applied rigorously regardless of the testator's intent. The Rule states that 'no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.' In this case, the testator's children were lives in being at his death in 1922. However, the gifts to 'grandchildren' and 'great-grandchildren' were class gifts. At the testator's death, the class of grandchildren was 'open,' meaning more grandchildren could be born (e.g., to his children). The law presumes the possibility of issue never becomes extinct as long as a person lives. Because it was possible for a grandchild to be born after the testator's death, and such a grandchild could then have a great-grandchild more than 21 years after the death of the testator's children (the true measuring lives), the gift to the great-grandchildren violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. The 'wait and see' or 'second look' doctrine was not applicable because the will took effect in 1922, prior to the 1955 effective date of the Connecticut statute adopting this doctrine. Furthermore, the court found the life estate for the grandchildren to be 'inextricably intertwined' and 'subservient or auxiliary' to the void remainder for the great-grandchildren, serving only to postpone distribution. Therefore, the life estate for the grandchildren also failed. As a result of both provisions failing, the property must pass as intestate property of the testator, meaning it will be distributed according to state law for property not disposed of by a will.
Analysis:
This case rigorously applies the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, emphasizing its strict nature as a 'positive mandate of law' that overrides testator intent. It highlights the 'fertile octogenarian' presumption and the 'all or nothing' rule for class gifts, where if any potential member of a class might vest too remotely, the entire class gift fails. The decision underscores the importance of precise drafting in wills and trusts to avoid perpetuities pitfalls and clarifies that statutory reforms like the 'wait and see' doctrine are generally not applied retroactively, thus maintaining the common law's harshness for older instruments. This serves as a critical reminder for legal practitioners and students about the unforgiving nature of the Rule and the potential for significant portions of a testamentary scheme to fail if it is violated.
