From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Central Trust Co. of Northern Ohio, N.A. v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
553 N.E.2d 265 (1990)
Facts
Loretta Smith executed a will establishing a trust split into equal shares for each of her three children: Ralph and Margaret, who both already had children, and Rosemary, who was single without children. The trustee could spend principal and income to support each grandchild, then expend the share of “such child” on a college education. The trust would distribute half a share of principal to each grandchild at 25, then the balance at 30. If Rosemary still had no children when Loretta died, Rosemary would receive her share outright. Ralph adopted another child, Bryan Smith (defendant), after Loretta died. Trustee Central Trust Co. of Northern Ohio (plaintiff) began making distributions when Ralph’s oldest child turned 17, paying for college. Presumably, the trustee also paid out half her share of principal after she turned 25 in 1980. Sometime afterward, Bryan wrote to the trustee claiming trust benefits. The trustee said Bryan was not a beneficiary and petitioned for a declaration whether Bryan was entitled to share in the trust. The probate court concluded the class gift closed when Loretta died, thus excluding Bryan. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that empowering the trustee to expend the share of “such child” showed intent to close the class of grandchild beneficiaries upon Loretta’s death. Bryan appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
Dissent (Cacioppo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.