Adams v. Link
145 Conn. 634, 145 A.2d 753 (1958)
- Kingsmill wrote a will that put the residue of her estate into a trust that provided income to Pringle and Foeppel for life, and then passed to the New York Association for the Blind.
- Pringle predeceased Kingsmill so Foeppel got the entire life estate.
- Kingsmill died. Her heirs at law (two brothers and a sister) contested the will.
- During Probate, Foeppel, the Association, and the heirs at law came to a settlement to divvy up the money.
- The executor (Link) refused to pass the money out to the various beneficiaries. They appealed.
- Link argued that the settlement agreement would abolish the trust, which frustrated Kingsmill’s intent.
- Link was getting fees for administrating the trust, so if the trust was terminated, he’d lose money.
- The Trial Court refused to approve the agreement. The beneficiaries appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed.
- The Appellate Court found that a testamentary trust can only be abolished by a court, regardless of the preferences of the beneficiaries.
- The Appellate Court found that there were three requirements to abolish a trust:
- All the parties of interest unite in seeking termination.
- Every reasonable ultimate purpose of the trust has been accomplished.
- No fair and lawful restriction imposed by the settlor will be nullified.
- The Appellate Court found that two purposes of the trust were to provide income for like to Foeppel, and to provide 100% of the intact principle to the Association.
- Splitting the money three ways did not insure that Foeppel would have income for life, nor did it give 100% of the principle to the Association.
- Therefore the second requirement to abolish the trust was not met.