From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
In re McKenzie’s Estate
California Court of Appeal
227 Cal. App. 2d 167 (1964)
Facts
Robert McKenzie’s will put McKenzie’s residuary estate into a trust. This trust would pay a reward to the person who found both the cause and the cure for rheumatoid arthritis, as determined by the medical board at the University of California Los Angeles. The will did not identify a trustee for the trust. McKenzie’s heirs (plaintiffs) contested the trust’s validity, and the attorney general (defendant) defended its validity. The trial court found that the trust was not a valid charitable trust because it named a single individual as the beneficiary. The trial court also found that the trust was not a valid private trust because the beneficiary was not identifiable and because the reward conditions might take so long to happen that the trust’s gift violated the rule against perpetuities. Therefore, the trial court ruled that the trust failed completely and that the estate’s residue should instead go to McKenzie’s heirs via intestate succession. The attorney general appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kingsley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 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.
