Estate of Wells v. Sanford
1984 Ark. LEXIS 1523, 663 S.W.2d 174, 281 Ark. 242 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trust providing for the support and maintenance of a beneficiary is presumed to be for the beneficiary's support regardless of their own personal assets, unless the testator's will contains express language manifesting a contrary intention.
Facts:
- In 1974, Nora Wells was declared physically incompetent, and Elvan G. Sanford was appointed as her guardian.
- In 1977, Nora's son, Hiram Wells, executed a will creating a testamentary trust for his mother's 'use and benefit' if she outlived him.
- The will authorized the trustee, Elvan Sanford, to 'expend for the support and maintenance of the said Nora Wells, such sums as may be necessary as long as she lives.'
- The will designated Elvan Sanford and his wife, Koleta J. Sanford, as the remaindermen, who would receive any property left in the trust upon Nora's death.
- Hiram Wells died in 1979, leaving 80 acres of real property as the sole asset of the trust.
- At the time of the dispute, Nora Wells was 91, resided in a nursing home with a large unpaid bill, and owned her own separate property consisting of 109 acres of land.
Procedural Posture:
- Elvan Sanford, as guardian, petitioned the Baxter County Probate Court to sell Nora Wells's own assets to pay for her support.
- J. C. Wells and Irene Bain, Nora Wells's other children, petitioned the Baxter County Chancery Court to compel Sanford, as trustee, to sell the trust assets for Nora's support.
- The probate and chancery cases were consolidated for trial in the Chancery Court.
- The trial court dismissed the petition to sell the trust assets, ruling that Hiram Wells intended for Nora Wells to use her own property before the trust funds became available.
- J. C. Wells and Irene Bain, the appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
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 trust authorizing a trustee to expend 'such sums as may be necessary' for a beneficiary's support and maintenance require the beneficiary to exhaust their own personal assets before the trust assets can be used?
Opinions:
Majority - P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice.
No. A trust that authorizes expenditures 'necessary for the support' of a beneficiary does not require the beneficiary to first exhaust their own separate assets. The court held that unless the will expressly indicates a different purpose, it is presumed that the testator intended the trust to support the beneficiary regardless of the beneficiary's other income or property. The phrase 'necessary for support' has a settled legal construction that does not imply a condition of indigency. To find otherwise would allow the testator to improperly control the disposition of another person's estate. Since Hiram Wells's will contained no language requiring his mother to exhaust her own assets first, the presumption controls, and the trust assets must be made available for her support.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a trust for support is a primary source of funds for a beneficiary, not a last resort. It establishes a strong default rule in favor of the beneficiary, placing the burden squarely on the testator to use explicit and unambiguous language if they intend to require the beneficiary to exhaust their own resources first. The ruling prevents trustees, who may also be remaindermen with a conflicting interest, from preserving the trust corpus at the expense of the primary beneficiary's immediate needs. This case serves as a crucial guide for estate planners on the importance of precise drafting to override established legal presumptions.
