Shenandoah Valley National Bank v. Taylor
63 S.E.2d 786 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trust is not a valid charitable trust, but a private trust subject to the rule against perpetuities, if it directs mandatory payments to a class of beneficiaries without regard to need and without granting the trustee discretion or control to ensure the funds are applied to the stated charitable purpose.
Facts:
- Charles B. Henry died on April 23, 1949, and his will created a trust with his residuary estate, valued at $86,000.
- The will directed the trustee, Shenandoah Valley National Bank, to establish the 'Charles B. Henry and Fannie Belle Henry Fund'.
- The trust mandated that the net income be divided equally among all children in the first, second, and third grades of the John Kerr School.
- Payments were to be made directly to each child on the last school day before Easter and the last school day before Christmas each year.
- The will included the phrase that the payment was 'to be used by such child in the furtherance of his or her obtainment of an education.'
- The John Kerr School was a public primary school with approximately 458 students in the specified grades.
- Henry left no close relatives; his heirs-at-law were first cousins and other more remote relations.
Procedural Posture:
- One of Charles B. Henry's next of kin filed a suit in a state trial court against the executor and trustee, Shenandoah Valley National Bank.
- Other heirs and distributees joined the suit, asking the court to declare the trust void.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the trust was not a charitable trust and therefore violated the rule against perpetuities.
- The executor and trustee filed a demurrer to the complaint.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, sustaining the heirs' position.
- The trial court entered decrees adjudicating that the trust was a private trust, not a charitable one, and was therefore void.
- The Shenandoah Valley National Bank, as executor and trustee, appealed the trial court's decrees to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
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 that directs a trustee to make direct cash payments to schoolchildren twice annually, with the precatory language that the money be used for their education, create a valid charitable trust, or is it a private trust that is void for violating the rule against perpetuities?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, J.
No. A will that directs a trustee to make direct cash payments to individuals, even with an admonition that the funds be used for an educational purpose, does not create a valid charitable trust if the trustee is given no power or discretion to ensure the funds are used for that purpose. The court distinguished between a valid public charitable trust and an invalid private benevolent trust that violates the rule against perpetuities. The court determined the testator's dominant intent by analyzing the will's specific language. The mandatory instruction to 'shall divide' and 'shall pay' the income directly to each child was deemed the controlling provision. The subsequent phrase 'to be used...for...an education' was found to be a legally impotent 'admonition' because the trustee had no power to enforce it. Once the payments were made, the trustee's duty was complete, and the funds were beyond the trust's control, thus accomplishing no educational purpose. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the trust was charitable as a general benefit to the community, reasoning that a gift providing mere financial enrichment to a segment of the public without regard to need is a benevolence, not a charity. Finally, the Virginia cy pres statute could not save the trust, as the statute can only cure defects in an existing charitable trust; it cannot transform a private trust into a charitable one.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental distinction between a private trust established for mere benevolence and a public charitable trust. It underscores that for a trust to be deemed charitable for the 'advancement of education,' the trust's mechanism must actively ensure that purpose is fulfilled, typically through trustee discretion and control over the funds. A testator's mere expression of hope or suggestion for how beneficiaries should use a direct cash gift is insufficient to create a charitable trust. This case serves as a crucial guide for estate planners, illustrating that a failure to grant the trustee supervisory power over the application of funds can cause an otherwise well-intentioned perpetual trust to fail under the rule against perpetuities.
Unlock the full brief for Shenandoah Valley National Bank v. Taylor