Olliffe v. Wells
Unknown (1881)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will indicates on its face that a bequest is to be held in trust but fails to specify the trust's terms or beneficiaries, the trust is void for indefiniteness, and extrinsic evidence of the testator's oral instructions is inadmissible to validate it against the testator's heirs at law or next of kin, in whose favor a resulting trust arises.
Facts:
- A testatrix, Ellen Donovan, executed a will.
- The residuary clause of the will bequeathed the remainder of her estate to Reverend Eleazar M. P. Wells.
- The will instructed Wells to distribute the property "in such manner as in his discretion shall appear best calculated to carry out wishes which I have expressed to him or may express to him."
- Before, at the time of, and after the will's execution, Donovan orally informed Wells of her intention that he distribute the residue for charitable purposes according to his discretion.
Procedural Posture:
- The next of kin of the testatrix (plaintiffs) filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts against the executor of the will, Eleazar M. P. Wells (defendant).
- The defendant filed an answer admitting the facts alleged and setting forth the oral instructions from the testatrix.
- The case was heard by a single justice of the court.
- The single justice reserved the case for determination by the full court upon the bill and answer.
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 an oral instruction from a testatrix to her executor, made before the will's execution, create an enforceable trust for charitable purposes when the will itself bequeaths property to the executor to be distributed according to wishes expressed outside the will?
Opinions:
Majority - Gray, C. J.
No. When a will bequeaths property to a person upon trusts that are not defined in the will, the intended trust fails for indefiniteness. The will, on its face, shows that the legatee (Wells) takes only legal title and not a beneficial interest. Because the will fails to make a complete and valid disposition of the equitable interest, a resulting trust arises in favor of the testatrix's next of kin. To allow extrinsic evidence, such as the testatrix's oral statements, to establish the terms of the trust would defeat the rights of the heirs and violate the Statute of Wills, which requires testamentary dispositions to be made in a signed and witnessed writing. The court distinguished this situation (a 'semi-secret trust') from one where a will makes an absolute bequest and a court imposes a constructive trust to prevent the legatee's fraud, because here the will itself precludes the legatee from taking any personal benefit.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between 'secret' and 'semi-secret' trusts in American law, establishing a stricter rule for the latter. By refusing to admit extrinsic evidence when a will indicates a trust exists but fails to define its terms, the court prioritizes the formal requirements of the Statute of Wills over the testator's apparent intent. This precedent prevents testators from effectively creating amendable, non-compliant testamentary trusts through private oral instructions. It confirms that if a will fails to dispose of the equitable interest in property, that interest vests in the heirs by operation of law, and this right cannot be defeated by unwitnessed statements.
Unlock the full brief for Olliffe v. Wells