- 13 -
will was “insufficient to grant Rose Posner either an
inter vivos or a testamentary power of appointment
. . . .” [Gordon v. Posner, 790 A.2d 675, 679 (Md. Ct.
Spec. App. 2002); emphasis added.]
Consequently, although we give the decisions of the court of
special appeals proper regard, those decisions do not squarely
answer the question whether decedent possessed an inter vivos
power of appointment over the marital trust property.
On reply brief, respondent argues that the only Maryland
decision that is “legally effective” with respect to this
question is the ruling of the Baltimore County circuit court,
which held that decedent lacked a testamentary power of
appointment over the marital trust property and stated in part:
“when Mr. Posner’s Will is read in its entirety, Item XIV grants
Mrs. Posner power over the Marital Trust. However, this power is
limited to inter vivos”. McDonagh v. Geduldig, No. C-97-001002
(Baltimore County Cir. Ct. Aug. 11, 1997).
As a threshold matter, we note that the Baltimore County
circuit court is a State trial court, not an intermediate State
appellate court. Although decisions of a State trial court are
given some weight and proper regard if on point, see Commissioner
v. Estate of Bosch, supra at 465, we must carefully consider the
nature of the trial court litigation, see Estate of Ahlstrom v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 220, 229 (1969), and the subsequent
proceedings on appeal.
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