Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner sought to have Decedent’s will admitted to probate. The Respondents argued that the doctrine of merger rendered a trust in the will ineffective and that a pour-over will was not intended.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A trust is not merged or invalid because a person, including its creator, is or may become sole trustee or sole holder of the present beneficial interest.
Does merger render the trust invalid?
Are the assets meant to be held in continuing trust after the Decedent’s death?
Is the pour-over provision effective and if not is the attempted incorporation of the trust into the will viable?
Did the decedent mean to exclude the Respondents from any share in the estate or trust?
No. The merger of the trust’s legal and equitable interests in Harold Pozarny during his lifetime does not render the Petitioner’s interest invalid. Although the Settlor was the trust’s sole trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary, he did not possess the fee simple. Therefore the remainder interest in the Petitioner must be given effect.
No. The will is construed as though the balance of the trust principal remaining after the decedent’s death is to be distributed outright to the Petitioner with the remainder to pass to the Petitioner’s descendants only if he had not survived the Settlor.
No. The trust is not a valid receptacle to receive the pour-over of assets from the decedent’s estate and therefore the will distributing the decedent’s probate estate to the trust cannot be given effect. Incorporation also cannot be given effect because of the absence of safeguards assuring the integrity and validity of the document.
No. Respondents are not barred from sharing in the estate and estate assets pass under the will to the Respondents as the decedent’s intestate distributes.
The intent of the testator must be gleaned not from a single word or phrase but from a sympathetic reading of the will as an entirety and in view of all the facts and circumstances under which the provisions of the will were framed.View Full Point of Law
According to state statute a valid receptacle for a pour-over must be “executed and acknowledged by the parties thereto in the manner required by the laws of this state for the recording of a conveyance of real property, prior to or contemporaneously with the execution of the will, and is identified in such will.” The Court finds that the trust in this case does not meet these standards and therefore cannot be given effect.