This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The decedent, aged 91, executed a will 16 days before his death in 1991, revoking all prior wills. The will appointed an attorney and personal friend, the Appellant, as personal representative and trustee, with instructions to distribute the estate based on the decedent's handwritten or signed instructions, or at the trustee's discretion if no instructions were left. The decedent's intestate heirs challenged the will, alleging undue influence, fraud, and violations of legal ethics, and sought to invalidate the testamentary trust provisions and remove the Appellant as personal representative.
Procedural History
- District Court, March 19, 1992: Held that the will's provisions attempting to create a trust or power of appointment were invalid and ordered the removal of the Appellant as personal representative.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants: Argued that the will created a valid testamentary trust and a power of appointment, that the beneficiaries were ascertainable, and that the Appellant's role as trustee and drafter of the will did not violate legal ethics. They also contended that extrinsic evidence should be admissible to clarify the decedent's intent.
- Appellees: Asserted that the will's provisions were legally insufficient to create a trust or power of appointment, that the Appellant's actions violated ethical rules, and that the Appellant should be removed as personal representative.
Legal Issues
- Did the will create a valid testamentary trust?
- Did the will establish a valid power of appointment?
- Was the removal of the Appellant as personal representative justified?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the invalidation of the testamentary trust and power of appointment provisions in the will.
- The court reversed the removal of the Appellant as personal representative and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Apodaca and Black JJ. concurring):
-
Testamentary Trust: The court found that the will failed to identify the beneficiaries with reasonable certainty, rendering the trust invalid. The decedent left no written instructions apart from the will, and the language of the will was too vague to establish an enforceable trust. The court emphasized that a valid trust requires ascertainable beneficiaries.
-
Power of Appointment: The court held that the will did not create a valid power of appointment because the class of potential beneficiaries was not clearly defined or ascertainable. The ambiguity in the will's language precluded the creation of such a power.
-
Removal of Personal Representative: The court reversed the removal of the Appellant as personal representative, noting that the trial court failed to specify the grounds for removal or conduct an evidentiary hearing. The court highlighted that invalidation of portions of the will does not automatically justify removal of the personal representative.