Brief Fact Summary. Clara A. Mayo and the appellee, James P. Mayo, executed wills and trusts in which each made the other their beneficiary. After the couple divorced, the appellee executed another will in favor of his new wife. When Mayo died, the appellee was the named beneficiary of Mayo’s trust.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under statutory law, unfunded trusts that are intended to be funded by a pour-over will are valid if the trust agreement is executed before the testator’s death. If a spouse remarries, any interests a former spouse may have under a will are revoked. This will statute revoking interests of a former spouse applies to a revocable pour-over trust where considering the time and manner in which the trust was created and funded, the decedent’s will and trust were integrally related components of one testamentary scheme.
But if a reading of the whole will produces a conviction that the testator must necessarily have intended an interest to be given which is not bequeathed by express and formal words, the court must supply the defect by implication, and so mould the language of the testator as to carry into effect, as far as possible, the intention which it is of opinion that he has on the whole will sufficiently declared.View Full Point of Law
Whether unfunded trusts that are intended to be funded by a pour-over will are valid?
Whether a statute that revokes a former spouse’s gift and powers under a will can also be applied to that former spouse’s interests under a trust if the will and trust are a part of one testamentary scheme?
Yes. A trust that receives property from a will is valid even though the trust had been unfunded during the settlor’s lifetime if the residuary clause of the testator’s will identified the trust and the terms of the trust were set out in a written instrument executed contemporaneously with the will.
Yes. A will and pour-over trust are a part of one testamentary scheme where the trust is a revocable pour-over trust that is funded entirely at the time of the decedent’s death. Because the trust and will were made as one scheme, the trust was also revoked as to the former spouse under the will statute. Furthermore, the legislature did not intend under the statute to allow the former spouse to receive a gift or power through a trust.
Discussion. In this case, the decedent left virtually all of her property to her former spouse. Because the legislature determined that former spouses should not be able to receive under their former spouse’s will, the court determined that it should also apply to testamentary trusts.