Can a surviving spouse claim a spousal share under M.G.L. 191 § 15 for assets held in a revocable inter-vivos trust—can one spouse disinherit the other spouse using a revocable trust?
Facts:
Mary A. Sullivan, widow of Ernest G. Sullivan, sought to claim a share of her late husband’s estate under G.L. c. 191, § 15. Ernest G. Sullivan had created an inter vivos trust during their marriage, transferring real estate to himself as the sole trustee. The trust, which allowed him to control both income and principal during his life and was revocable by him, named George F. Cronin, Sr., and Harold J. Cronin as beneficiaries upon his death. Sullivan’s will stated that he intentionally omitted his wife and grandson from his will and directed that his estate be transferred to the inter vivos trust. Upon his death, the wife claimed that the trust’s assets should be included in his probate estate for the purposes of her statutory share.
Procedural History:
The Probate Court denied Mary Sullivan’s claim, ruling that the assets in the inter vivos trust were not part of the probate estate. The judge’s decision was based on established principles regarding inter vivos trusts, which did not recognize claims by a surviving spouse against such trusts. Sullivan appealed, and the Appeals Court reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court due to its significant legal implications, particularly in light of evolving legal doctrines and discussions in the American Law Institute.
Issues:
- Whether the inter vivos trust created by Ernest G. Sullivan was testamentary in nature, and thus whether its assets should be considered part of the probate estate.
- Whether Mary A. Sullivan, under G.L. c. 191, § 15, could claim a share of the trust assets as part of her statutory right to a portion of her deceased husband’s estate.
Holding:
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate Court’s judgment. The Court held that the inter vivos trust was valid and not testamentary. It rejected Mary Sullivan’s claim that the trust’s assets should be included in the probate estate for the purposes of her statutory share under G.L. c. 191, § 15. The Court adhered to the principles established in *Kerwin v. Donaghy*, which had long denied surviving spouses claims against valid inter vivos trusts.
Rationale:
The Court determined that the trust was not testamentary as it was created during the lifetime of Ernest G. Sullivan and allowed him significant control over its assets. The Court upheld the principle from an earlier case that a surviving spouse cannot claim a share of assets held in a valid inter vivos trust created by the deceased spouse. This rule remains in place despite evolving legal standards and public policy considerations.
For future cases involving inter vivos trusts, the Court indicated that assets held in such trusts created or amended after the date of this opinion would be included in the probate estate if the deceased spouse retained a general power of appointment over those assets. This new rule would ensure that surviving spouses’ rights are recognized in a more equitable manner, reflecting changes in public policy and marital property laws.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of Mary A. Sullivan’s complaint, upholding the validity of Ernest G. Sullivan’s inter vivos trust and confirming that its assets were not part of the probate estate for the purposes of her statutory share.
If you need a probate attorney in Houston, contact us today for a free consultation!
