- 36 -
encroaching on this trust”. Based on these recitations,
respondent maintains that Mrs. Lassiter is not entitled to all
income; rather, she is entitled only to so much of the income as
falls within the ascertainable standard of what is necessary for
her support in reasonable comfort, and any amount in excess
thereof is to be accumulated. Respondent further characterizes
Mrs. Lassiter’s interest in the Item V trust as secondary and
comments that distributions may be made to her only after
considering the income and corpus of the Item IV trust.
Conversely, it is the estate’s position that in absence of
any explicit direction regarding the timing and amount of
distributions or the accumulation of income, both Ga. Code Ann.
section 53-12-190 (1997) and Friedman v. United States, 364 F.
Supp. 484 (S.D. Ga. 1973), establish Mrs. Lassiter’s right to all
income at least annually. The estate also argues that the
reference to encroachment relates only to distributions of
principal and has no impact on Mrs. Lassiter’s right to income.
We deal first with this apparent dispute over the effect of
the encroachment clause. In the context of trust law, the term
“encroach” is commonly used and understood to refer to invasion
of trust corpus or principal. For example, Ga. Code Ann. section
53-12-250 (1997) is entitled “Disposition of income; encroachment
on corpus”. Specifically in the 1970 will, the word is employed
in two other instances, each making explicit the connection
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011