- 22 -
appointment, the trust instrument provided that the corpus should
go to his children in equal shares. Id. at 566.
Given these facts, the court of appeal emphasized that
“persons in existence, who are specifically designated in a trust
instrument to take in default of the exercise of a power of
appointment by the holder of the preceding estate, are
beneficiaries of that trust and acquire vested remainder
interests, although their interests are subject to complete
divestment.” Id. at 569. Because Mr. Wing’s children were
living when the trust was created, the court held the doctrine of
merger inapplicable, concluding that the children were additional
beneficiaries of the trust whose interests could not be
disregarded. Id. at 569-570.
We see no material distinction between the situation at
issue in Ammco Ornamental Iron, Inc., and that presented here.
Like Mr. Wing, decedent was granted a life income interest in, a
power to invade, and a power of appointment over the relevant
trust. Although decedent’s powers were in some respects broader
than those of Mr. Wing, none of the differentiating features
figured in the California court’s analysis. The crucial
similarity lies in the fact that the two trust instruments both
named beneficiaries in existence at the time of execution to take
if the respective powers of appointment were not exercised.
These vested future interests were sufficient in Ammco Ornamental
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011