Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

nonmarital child a beneficiary because it was not the law when the trust
was executed and would be applied only if there was a court adjudication
of legitimacy.
6. In re Final Accounting of Leonard B. Boehner, 941 N.Y.S.2d 155
(N.Y. App. Div. 2012). While former law prohibited adopted children
from defeating rights of remainder beneficiaries when an adoptive
parent died without biological children, it did not apply to prevent
adopted children of one of the lifetime beneficiary’s three children, as
descendants of the lifetime beneficiary, from sharing in the remaining
trust assets with other remainder beneficiaries. In 1957, the decedent
created an irrevocable trust for the lifetime benefit of her daughter, Lydia.
The trust agreement provided that, upon Lydia’s death, the remaining trust
assets would be divided into equal shares for each of Lydia’s children.
Upon the death of one of Lydia’s children, the trustee was to distribute
that deceased child’s share to the descendants of such child. In 1988,
Lydia died and the court approved the division of the remaining trust
assets into three separate trusts, one of each of Lydia’s children. One of
her children did not have any biological issue, but married a woman who
had two children whom he adopted in 1984 when they were 31 and 29
years old, respectively. That child of Lydia’s then died. The court upheld
the decision that the remaining trust assets should be distributed 1/3 to
each of Lydia’s living children and 1/3 to the deceased child’s adopted
children.
7. Rockland Trust Company v. Attorney General, 976 N.E.2d 801 (Mass.
2012). The trust agreement would be reformed to provide that if
distributable funds exceeded $10,000, they would be divided into a
number of scholarships in equal amounts, each scholarship being at
least $10,000. The decedent established a trust that, upon her death,
would pay from the income one or two $10,000 scholarships to certain
high school students and, if the income was less than $10,000, the trust
provided that the whole amount of the net income to be paid as a
scholarship. The trust did not identify any other beneficiaries. The trust
applied to the IRS to be treated as a private foundation, but the IRS
declined to grant the status unless the trust agreement was amended to
demonstrate a general intent to benefit charity and not merely a specific
intent to benefit a particular institution. Although the trust set forth a
specific charitable purpose, it did not contain language evidencing a
general charitable intent. (The consequence of failing to qualify as a
private foundation was payment of income taxes at a high marginal rate,
which would reduce the income available for scholarships.) The trustee
filed an action to reform the trust and alleged that, due to a scrivener’s
error, the trust language did not reflect the settlor’s general charitable
intent. The attorney who drafted the trust agreement gave an affidavit that
confirmed this. Also, two of the decedent’s friends gave affidavits
attesting to her charitable donations and volunteer work. In addition to
36