189 Misc. 795 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1946
Petitioner has filed the first account of its proceedings as trustee of a discretionary common trust fund, in accordance with the mandate of subdivision 10.of section 100-c of the Banking Law. In the petition it asks instructions in respect of matters which are identical with certain of the questions raised in an accounting by Bank of New York as trustee
(1) The ordinary expenses of an accounting proceeding may be paid out of the common fund and are a proper charge against the principal of the common fund as of the date of the decree.
(2) - In accordance with the plan of operation of the petitioner it is not required to amortize premiums paid on securities purchased, by it as trustee of the common trust fund. An investment made by petitioner in its separate capacity as trustee of the common fund is an investment by an entirely separate entity and petitioner has no concern with any rule of amortization that might be applicable if the investment had been made by a participating estate or fund.
(3) In determining the maximum amount that may be invested in participations in the common fund, the “ presently payable ” test is to be applied, in accordance with the Banking Board’s interpretation of its own regulation.
(4) Where an instrument creates separate and distinct trusts, the funds of each separate trust may be invested in the common fund if such investments do not conflict with the regulations of the Banking Board. The words “ the instrument ” which appear in the second sentence of subdivision 1 of section 100-c of the Banking Law, were intended to refer to the source of authority to invest in the common fund and not to constitute a limitation upon the maximum amount that could be invested by all the separate trusts created in the same instrument.
(5) The court approves the practice adopted by the petitioner in issuing units of participation for United States Savings Bonds, Series G-, at par, and in using the cost or par value of the bonds in the periodic valuations required by the statute.'
One of the special guardians raises a further question in respect of the giving of notice to beneficiaries of the participating estates or trusts.
The special guardian contends that certain persons, were entitled to notice under the statute and that no notice was sent to them. He recommends that the decree to be entered provide that it shall not be binding on the designated persons. Even if it be assumed (without deciding the question) that these persons were entitled to notice, nevertheless, it is unnecessary to provide in the decree respecting its binding effect upon them or upon any other person. The statute prescribes the rights and remedies of any person entitled to notice who was not properly furnished with such notice, and the decree should neither enlarge nor diminish the rights given by statute to the beneficiaries.
Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.
See, also, Matter of Security Trust Co. of Rochester, 189 Misc. 748. — [Rep.