Scott v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A.
Ohio Supreme Court
577 N.E.2d 1077, 62 Ohio St. 3d 39 (1991)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Jeanette G. Brewer’s son, John McCombe (defendant), had significant debts. Although Brewer wanted to leave her estate to McCombe, she did not want her estate to benefit McCombe’s creditors. Accordingly, she created a trust that directed the trustee, Bank One Trust Co., N.A. (Bank One) (defendant), to distribute Brewer’s assets outright to McCombe on Brewer’s death, but not if (1) McCombe was insolvent; (2) McCombe had filed a petition for bankruptcy; or (3) McCombe would not personally enjoy the trust estate. If Bank One could not transfer the trust estate to McCombe outright, then the trust became a discretionary trust for McCombe and his three children. When Brewer died in 1984, Bank One determined that McCombe was insolvent and would not personally enjoy the trust assets. The trust became a discretionary trust. In 1986 McCombe filed a petition for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee, Thomas C. Scott (plaintiff), filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court seeking an order declaring the trust invalid as an unenforceable spendthrift trust and directing Bank One to turn the trust assets over to McCombe’s bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court found in favor of Scott, and McCombe and Bank One appealed to the district court. The district court certified the question of whether spendthrift trusts were valid in Ohio to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.