ENGLAND v. DECKER, 441 Mass. 1013 (2004)

806 N.E.2d 424

FREDERICK J. ENGLAND, JR., another,[1] trustees,[2] v. JENNIFER L. DECKER others.[3]

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
April 20, 2004.

[1] Eastern Bank.
[2] Of the Frederick J. England Family Trust.
[3] William N. England; Hilary E. Norman; Alexandra L. Decker, through her next friend Jennifer L. Decker; Dorothy R. England, Peter A. England, and David N. England, through their next friend William N. England; Lia J. Norman, Elijah D. Norman, and Nicholas J. Norman, through their next friend Hilary E. Norman; Frederick J. England, Jr.; and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Trust, Reformation. Taxation, Generation-skipping transfer tax.

A single justice of this court has reserved and reported this case to the full court. The trustees seek to reform the Frederick J. England Family Trust by dividing “Trust B” into two separate trusts, a generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exempt trust and a GST tax nonexempt trust, in order to minimize Federal GST taxes and administration expenses.[4] We have previously allowed reformations of this type. See Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Kahn, 438 Mass. 1004 (2002); Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Marquis, 437 Mass. 1010 (2002); Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Mackey, 433 Mass. 1009
(2001).

After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that the proposed

Page 1014

reform promotes the settlor’s intent and should be allowed as a matter of Massachusetts law. The language of the trust reveals that the settlor was tax conscious, and there is no provision prohibiting such a division of the trust. The proposed division will not affect the dispositive terms of the trust nor will it alter any beneficial interests. This type of trust reform is minimal and constitutes only a “fine tuning of the administration of the trust . . . in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the application of the GST tax.” BankBoston v. Marlow, 428 Mass. 283, 286 (1998), quoting First Agric. Bank v. Coxe, 406 Mass. 879, 883 n. 6 (1990).

A judgment shall be entered in the county court authorizing the plaintiffs to divide and administer “Trust B” as requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint’s prayer for relief.

So ordered.

[4] All of the known beneficiaries have agreed to the operative facts and assented to the relief requested. The single justice, for good cause shown, allowed the trustees’ motion to waive the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

Jeffrey P. Hart, John D. Stuebing, Karen L. McKenna, for the plaintiffs, submitted a brief.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. BORGOS, 464 Mass. 23 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Borgos, 464 Mass. 23 (2012) Dec 21, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

3 months ago

COMMONWEALTH V. JONES, 464 Mass. 16 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Jones, 464 Mass. 16 (2012) Dec 18, 2012 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 464 Mass.…

3 months ago

CROCKER v. TOWNSEND OIL CO., 464 Mass. 1 (2012)

Charles Edward Crocker & another1 vs. Townsend Oil Company, Incorporated, & others.2 Essex. September 4, 2012.…

3 months ago

COMMONWEALTH v. BUSWELL, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012)

Commonwealth v. Buswell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2012) Dec 12, 2012 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · No. 10-P-1556…

3 months ago

XL Specialty Insurance Company v. Massachusetts Highway Department, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147 (2013)

XL Specialty Insurance v. Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Superior Court 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 147…

5 months ago

CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, 464 Mass. 1008 (2013)

464 Mass. 1008 (2013)980 N.E.2d 928 SANDRA CLARK v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.…

5 months ago