Adams v. Link Case Brief

Adams v. Link 145 Conn. 634, 145 A.2d 753 (1958) • Kingsmill wrote a will that put the residue of her estate into a trust that provided income to Pringle and Foeppel for life, and then passed to the New York Association for the Blind. • Pringle predeceased Kingsmill so Foeppel got the entire life estate. • Kingsmill died. Her heirs at law (two brothers and a sister) contested the will. • During Probate, Foeppel, the Association, and the heirs at law came to a settlement to divvy up the money. • The executor (Link) refused to pass the money out to the various beneficiaries. They appealed. • Link argued that the settlement agreement would abolish the trust, which frustrated Kingsmill's intent. • Link was getting fees for administrating the trust, so if the trust was terminated, he'd lose money. • The Trial Court refused to approve the agreement. The beneficiaries appealed. • The Appellate Court affirmed. • The Appellate Court found that a testamentary trust can only be abolished by a court, regardless of the preferences of the beneficiaries. • The Appellate Court found that there were three requirements to abolish a trust: • All the parties of interest unite in seeking termination. • Every reasonable ultimate purpose of the trust has been accomplished. • No fair and lawful restriction imposed by the settlor will be nullified. • The Appellate Court found that two purposes of the trust were to provide income for like to Foeppel, and to provide 100% of the intact principle to the Association. • Splitting the money three ways did not insure that Foeppel would have income for life, nor did it give 100% of the principle to the Association. • Therefore the second requirement to abolish the trust was not met. Project Wonderful -Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0