- 14 -
In ruling that Mr. Posner’s will gave decedent no
testamentary power, the Baltimore County circuit court stated
that item XIV of Mr. Posner’s will was a granting clause that
granted decedent only an inter vivos power of appointment.8 In
its affirmance, the court of special appeals relied on the lack
of specificity in Mr. Posner’s will regarding the claimed
testamentary power of appointment. The court of special appeals
did not endorse the circuit court’s statement that item XIV was a
granting clause that granted decedent an inter vivos power of
appointment.
To the contrary, as previously discussed, in holding that
Mr. Posner’s will gave decedent no testamentary power of
appointment, the court of special appeals stated in dicta that
Mr. Posner’s will was “insufficient to grant Rose Posner either
an inter vivos or a testamentary power of appointment over the
marital trust's assets.” Posner v. McDonagh, supra. In light of
this statement, and considering the basis on which the court of
special appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, we are
reluctant to assign much weight to the Baltimore County circuit
court’s statement that Mr. Posner’s will granted decedent an
8 In the Baltimore County circuit court proceeding, the
daughters argued that item XIV of Mr. Posner’s will was only a
saving clause and thus granted no powers. In the alternative,
the daughters argued that if item XIV was a granting clause, the
clause granted only inter vivos, not testamentary, power. The
Baltimore County circuit court accepted this latter argument.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011