Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-79 ~ , IN THE I>1A.TTER OF THE BAUGHI>1AN MEMORIAL METHODIST CHURCH TRUST, CCNB, TRUSTEE IN THE COURT OF CO~~ON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 419 ORPHANS' 1978 IN RE: PETITION TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE TRUST AGREEI\1ENT BEFORE SHEELY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~3,.J day of April, 1979, the petition of Baughman Memorial Methodist Church of New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to terminate the trust agreement with the C.C.N.B. Bank, N.A., dated AprilS, 1965, is granted. The trustee is directed to pay over to the Church the corpus and any undistri- buted income, less the trustee's fee. Since the funds are invested In units of the Bank's Fixed Income Fund, distribution is directed to the Church on or about June 1, 1979. The termination of this trust by this order shall not relieve the Church from the responsibility of properly applying the corpus or income from the corpus as directed by the terms of the instruments which made the gifts to the Church. John H. Broujos, Esquire For Petitioner By the Court, H~~ ;;e~ l~'/ ~ .~ "6 .', "'t '.)" 2 U..tJr,.a.U I,d; Art." Wilhelm E. Shissler, Esquire For CCNB Bank, N.A. " , IN THE !-1A.TTER OF THE BAUGHMAN IN THE COURT OF CO~rnON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION HEMORIAL HETHODIST CHURCH TRUST, CCNB, TRUSTEE NO. 419 ORPHANS' 1978 IN RE: PETITION TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE TRUST AGREEMENT BEFORE SHEELY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Baughman Memorial Methodist Church (hereinafter referred to as Church) of New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, has filed a petition with this court to modify or terminate a trust agreement entered into with the C.C.N.B. Bank, N.A., (hereinafter referred to as Bank) also of New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on April 5, 1965. The petition filed was in the nature of a Rule to Show Cause and the Bank has filed an answer to said petition. A hearing was held before the court on AprilS, 1979. The trust agreement was executed by the Church as settlor, the Bank as trustee and the Church as beneficiary. By its terms generally, the Bank was to invest the original corpus and any additional funds received from the Church and pay the income to the Church. The agreement stated that it was to be irrevocable. No , NO. 419 ORPHANS' 1978 provisions were made to modify or terminate the trust. From its inception, the terms of the agreement have been properly carried out by the Bank. The corpus is comprised of funds given to the Church over a period of time in many different ways, by different people and in various amounts. Some of the corpus consists of funds from which the Church is entitled only to the income while other funds are unrestricted as to their use. The trust corpus as of December 31, 1978, was $7,724.17. The primary reason for the termination is that the Church might desire to use the unrestricted funds and to have their trustees manage the balance. There was no dissatisfaction with the manner in which the trustee was handling the trust. Since the settlor of the trust and the beneficiary are both the same entity, there seems to be no logical reason to prohibit termination of the trust. Section 339 of the Restatement of Trusts, 2d, provides as follows: If the settlor is the sole beneficiary of a trust and is not under an incapacity, he can compel the termination of the trust, although the purposes of the trust have not been accomplished. Also in accord is section 338 of IV Scott on Trusts (1967), where on page 2687 it provides as follows: The argument in favor of permitting the beneficiaries and settlor to terminate the trust even though the purposes for which it was created have not been accom- plished is that there is no reason to keep the trust -2- .. ~ NO. 419 ORPHANS' 1978 alive if all persons beneficially interested desire its termination. That is held to be a sufficient reason in England, even though the settlor does not consent. The American courts, as we have seen, have taken the view that they owe it to the settlor to see that the property is dealt with in accordance with his directions. But if the settlor has changed his mind and no longer wishes to have his directions carried out, and no one of the beneficiaries wishes to have them carried out, why should the court insist on carrying them out? The Restatement rule has been cited with approval in Bower's Trust Estate, 346 Pa. 85, 29 A.2d 519 (1943). See also Dunlap Trust, 67 D.&C.2d 301 (O.C. Philadelphia 1974). Under these facts, the petition of the Church should be granted. The court appreciates the position of the trustee Bank in this case, although it did not appear in opposition to termination of the trust, it did present helpful information to the court to make its decision. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this '3 ~ day of April, 1979, the petition of Baughman Memorial Methodist Church of New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, to terminate the trust agreement with the C.C.N.B. Bank, N.A., dated AprilS, 1965, is granted. The trustee is direct:ed to pay over to the Church the corpus and any undistri- buted income, less the trustee's fee. Since the funds are invested ln units of the Bank's Fixed Income Fund, distribution is directed to the Church on or about June 1, 1979. -3- . . NO. 419 ORPHANS' 1978 The termination of this trust by this order shall not relieve the Church from the responsibility of properly applying the corpus or income from the corpus as directed by the terms of the instruments which made the gifts to the Church. John H. Broujos, Esquire For Petitioner Wilhelm E. Shissler, Esquire For CCNB Bank, N.A. :pbf By the Court, /s/ Harold E. Sheely J. -4-