23 Misc. 2d 70 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1960
The Sixth article of this decedent’s will created a trust of a portion of her residuary estate with $25,-000 of the trust remainder payable to a church and the balance of the remainder payable to a granddaughter of the testatrix. This trust terminated on June 13, 1955 upon the death of the survivor of the income beneficiaries. On June 15,1955 the trustee wrote to .the granddaughter of the testatrix respecting the need to liquidate securities for the purpose of procuring the sum of $25,000, which was payable to the church, and in that letter the trustee listed the securities then in the trust, including 2,100 shares of New Jersey Zinc Company. The remainderman replied by letter of June 22, 1955 in which she accepted the recommendation of the trustee that certain securities be sold to obtain the necessary cash amount. This letter also contained the following statement: “ For the present I prefer to
The account of the trustee was filed for judicial settlement in March, 1959 and it states that, based upon initial inventory value and market valuations as of March 1, 1958, the 1,850 shares of New Jersey Zinc then on hand had decreased in value to the extent of $67,756.25. The remainderman has filed objections to the account and asserts that from the date of the trust’s termination the stock suffered a decrease in value of $31,717 for which the trustee' should be surcharged.
While the trust terminated in June, 1955 upon the death of the survivor of the two income beneficiaries, the duties of the trustee did not then terminate but continued until division and distribution of the income and corpus (Matter of Miller, 257 N. Y. 349, 355; Matter of Thomas, 254 N. Y. 292). So long as the trustee retained its post it was under a duty to administer the fund and to maintain a proper investment policy. The record in this case raises doubt that the trustee fully appreciated its responsibilities in this regard and there is indication that the trustee felt the responsibility to be that of the remainderman. Nevertheless the fact is that the trustee obtained a direction from the remainderman to retain investments for distribution in kind and thereafter no contrary direction was given, even though the trustee made inquiries of the remainderman as to her desire to dispose of the securities. Under these circumstances a basis for surcharge does not exist and the objection to the unrealized decrease in value is dismissed.
Submit decree on notice.