- 16 -
Once more, the facts before us fit this pattern as well. The
trustee did not even open a bank account for the trust; hence, we
are hard-pressed to infer that the trustee intended to manage the
property so as to achieve an economic benefit for the
beneficiaries at any time prior to decedent’s death.
Furthermore, we find the particular terms of the trust
instrument at issue here to be highly supportive of an implied
arrangement that decedent would retain possession of the
condominium. Specifically, we emphasize that the express terms
of the agreement granted Mr. Trotter a right to possess the
property for a period following decedent’s death. We believe
that there would have been little, if any, reason to include such
language absent an understanding that decedent and her husband
would be living in the home at the time of her death.
Moreover, we are satisfied that the logical conclusion to be
drawn from these terms is not negated by the withdrawal
provisions upon which the estate so heavily relies. The numerous
indicia discussed above are equally supportive of an implied
understanding that the withdrawal rights would not be exercised,
an interpretation buttressed by the awareness that the
beneficiaries were decedent’s grandchildren (and three of the
five were minors). We cannot blind ourselves to the reality of
the family relationships involved, and the estate has failed to
show that the withdrawal rights were anything more than a paper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011