- 18 -
(citing Fies v. Feist, 224 S.W. 633 (Ark. 1920)); see also Estate
of Harp v. Harp, 875 S.W.2d 490, 491 (Ark. 1994). “[I]t is
* * * [the court’s] duty to consider the * * * [trust] as a whole
and to reach ‘the real purpose and intention of the testator.’”
Angel v. Angel, 655 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Ark. 1983) (quoting Union
Trust Co. v. Madigan, 35 S.W. 349 (Ark. 1931)).
3. Decedent Intended To Qualify for the
Marital Deduction
In interpreting two conflicting clauses, we must determine
the decedent’s intent, using the four corners of the trust
agreement. See Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock, 983 S.W.2d at
919-920; see also In re Estate of Lindsey, supra at 812 (“The
paramount principle in the interpretation of wills is that the
intention of the testator governs.”). We find that, considering
all language in the trust agreement, decedent’s intent was to
qualify for the marital deduction.
Decedent manifested his intent to qualify for the marital
deduction in numerous ways. First, the trust agreement named two
of the trusts in reference to the marital deduction: The
“Marital Deduction Trust” and the “Non-Marital Deduction Trust”.
The name of a trust is evidence of decedent’s intent.
Second, it is evident from the trust agreement that decedent
intended to minimize Federal estate taxes through the use of the
marital deduction. See Estate of Todd v. Commissioner, 57 T.C.
288, 294 (1971) (references to the marital deduction and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011