In re the Estate Mannara
2004 NY Slip Op 24370, 785 N.Y.S.2d 274, 5 Misc. 3d 556 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will that bequeaths property "in trust for" a beneficiary's education without designating a trustee or outlining any active duties for a trustee fails to create a valid trust. Such language is interpreted as an expression of the testator's motive for the gift, resulting in the property vesting directly in the beneficiary.
Facts:
- Lydia Mannara executed a will while in extremis, the day before her death.
- A visiting friend, who was an attorney, handwrote the will for Mannara, acting as an amanuensis (scribe).
- The sole dispositive provision in the will bequeathed all of Mannara's assets to her "two nephews in trust for their education."
- The will did not designate a trustee nor did it define any duties or powers for a trustee to manage the assets.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator c.t.a. of the will of Lydia Mannara filed a petition in the Surrogate's Court, a trial-level court.
- The petition asked the court to construe a provision of the will and find that it created a valid trust for the testator's two nephews.
- A guardian ad litem was appointed by the court to represent the interests of the two minor nephews in the proceeding.
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 will provision that bequeaths all assets to beneficiaries "in trust for their education," but fails to name a trustee or specify any trustee duties, create a valid testamentary trust?
Opinions:
Majority - Surrogate Preminger
No. A will provision that bequeaths assets "in trust for their education" without naming a trustee or specifying trustee duties does not create a valid testamentary trust. The court determined that the testator did not manifest the required intent to create a trust relationship, as the will lacks fundamental attributes such as a designated trustee and the conferral of management duties. The phrase 'in trust for their education' is interpreted not as a legal qualification of the bequest, but as an expression of the testator's motive for making the gift, similar to the holding in Matter of Douglas. Furthermore, even if intent to create a trust were found, the absence of any specified active duties for a trustee would render it a 'passive trust,' which, by operation of law (EPTL 7-1.2), results in the legal title vesting directly in the beneficiaries.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the mere use of the words "in trust" is insufficient to create a valid trust without a clear manifestation of intent to impose equitable duties on a trustee. It clarifies that courts will look for the substance of a trust relationship—a designated trustee with active management duties—rather than just formulaic language. The case serves as a caution that poorly drafted wills, even those physically written by an attorney, can fail to achieve the testator's intended structure, leading to outright bequests instead of managed trusts. Future cases involving ambiguous trust language will likely use this decision to distinguish between a true trust and a simple bequest with a stated motive.
