150 Conn.App. 199
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Decedent Aloise Buckley Heath was an original beneficiary and settlor under the 1953 Hembdt Trust. Upon her death in 1967, the trust directed a beneficiary’s interest to "legal representatives, heirs-at-law or next of kin" in accordance with the law of the beneficiary’s domicile.
- The decedent’s will created a marital testamentary trust for her husband (defendant Benjamin W. Heath) and a children’s testamentary trust for her children; trustees allocated the Hembdt Trust interests into those testamentary trusts (≈54.3936% to marital trust; ≈45.6064% to children’s trust).
- Six of the decedent’s ten children (the plaintiffs) sued in 2009, seeking a declaration and damages that the Hembdt Trust interests should have passed directly to them as heirs-at-law rather than into the decedent’s estate and then into the testamentary trusts.
- The core dispute at trial was the interpretation of paragraph three of the Hembdt Trust: whether "legal representatives, heirs-at-law or next of kin" meant lineal descendants (the children) or included executors/administrators so the interests could pass into the decedent’s estate.
- The trial court held the trust language was unambiguous and sided with Heath, upholding the trustees’ distribution into the testamentary trusts; the plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "legal representatives, heirs-at-law or next of kin" in para. 3 of the trust | "Legal representatives" must mean the decedent's children; terms should be read synonymously so the trust passes directly to lineal descendants | "Legal representatives" includes executors/administrators; terms operate sequentially so interests may pass to estate then to heirs under will or intestacy rules | The trust language is unambiguous; terms are not required to be synonymous and support distribution into the decedent’s estate and then under testamentary instruments or intestacy law |
| Whether the provision is "unworkable" if "legal representatives" means executors/administrators | If read to mean estate representatives, "heirs-at-law" and "next of kin" become meaningless | The terms operate together: (1) to legal representatives (executors/administrators) if probate opened; (2) to heirs-at-law if intestate and no probate opened; (3) to next of kin if no heirs; distributions follow applicable law | Court rejects plaintiffs’ unworkability argument; will not rewrite the trust; enforces plain meaning |
| Need for extrinsic evidence to determine settlor intent | If ambiguous, extrinsic evidence should be considered | No extrinsic evidence necessary because terms are clear | Court finds instrument unambiguous; did not rely on extrinsic evidence |
| Standard of review for trust interpretation | N/A (argues for de novo review of interpretation) | N/A (urges application of established interpretation rules) | Interpretation is a question of law when instrument is unambiguous; appellate court affirms trial court’s legal determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Palozie v. Palozie, 283 Conn. 538 (2007) (trust language unambiguous — give effect to terms within the four corners)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 117 Conn. App. 229 (2009) (trust construction is a question of law; extrinsic evidence disfavored when instrument is clear)
- Ahern v. Thomas, 248 Conn. 708 (1999) (court will not rewrite a trust instrument)
- Smith v. Groton, 147 Conn. 272 (1960) (definitions of "legal representatives" may include executors/administrators or those entitled by inheritance)
- Brooks Bank & Trust Co. v. Beers, 120 Conn. 477 (1935) (interpretive uses of terms such as "legal representatives")
- Close v. Benham, 97 Conn. 102 (1921) ("next of kin" has dual legal meanings: consanguinity or statutory intestacy takers)
- Daniels v. Daniels, 115 Conn. 239 (1932) ("heir-at-law" means those who would inherit under statutes of distribution)