- 15 -
estate argues:
Pursuant to said Testamentary Trust [the testamen-
tary trust created in Ms. Wright’s will], the death of
any of the six children of Robert Wright had the effect
of terminating the Trust as to the principal comprising
said Testamentary Trust represented by that portion of
the income therefrom which such child had been receiv-
ing prior to her death.
Pursuant to said Testamentary Trust, the recipi-
ent(s) of that principal were, as to such deceased
child of Robert Wright, here, Mrs. Greve, such persons
as Mrs. Greve shall by her Last Will and Testament,
designate and appoint.
* * * * * * *
It is respectfully submitted that the above de-
scribed Trust termination language constituted a spe-
cial and not a general power of appointment in favor of
Mrs. Greve.
Pursuant to the clear language of said Trust
termination provision, Mrs. Greve was required to
designate and appoint persons to take that principal.
The word “designate” is defined, in Websters New Colle-
giate Dictionary, as to distinguish or to indicate and
set apart for a specific purpose or to denote. The
word “appoint” is defined, in Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary, as to fix or set officially or to name
officially.
It is respectfully submitted that nowhere in her
Will did Mrs. Greve fulfill the express requirement in
said Trust termination language that she had to “desig-
nate and appoint” persons to take the specified portion
of the principal in said Testamentary Trust over which
she had control by her Will.
In summary, Mrs. Greve did not receive a general
power of appointment in the Testamentary Trust created
by Mrs. Wright. What she received was the right to
specifically designate and appoint those persons who
would take principal. She completely failed so to do;
9(...continued)
2003); In re Estate of Jaekel, 424 Pa. 433, 438 (1967).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011