Seidel v. Werner
Supreme Court of New York, Special Term for New York County
364 N.Y.S.2d 963 (1975)
Abraham L. Werner established a trust that made Steven L. Werner the life beneficiary of a one-half share of the trust principal, over which share Steven had a testamentary power of appointment. If Steven failed to exercise his power of appointment, a default provision in the trust provided for distribution of Steven’s share to Steven’s living children, and if none, to Abraham’s next of kin. When Steven obtained a Mexican consent judgment of divorce against his second wife, Harriet G. Werner (defendant), a separation agreement incorporated by reference contained Steven’s promise to make, and not revoke, a will in which he exercises his power of appointment over the trust assets in favor of Anna and Frank Werner (defendants), his children with Harriet. The agreement specified that the trustees pay the income to Harriet for Anna and Frank’s support and maintenance until they reach the age of twenty-one, at which time they would receive the principal, but if they failed to survive Steven, the property would revert to Steven’s estate. Steven, however, died with a will that exercised his power of appointment in favor of his third wife, Edith Fisch Werner (defendant). The trustees (plaintiffs) brought an action for a declaratory judgment to determine which party is entitled to receive Steven’s one-half share of the trust assets. Harriet, Anna and Frank filed counterclaims and cross-claims seeking a declaratory judgment in their favor and other relief. They argued that even if Steven’s promise to exercise his power in their favor was unenforceable, the agreement should be construed as a release of his power of appointment, in which case the trust assets must be divided among Steven’s children under the default provision. Edith filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that she is entitled to Steven’s share of the trust because he exercised his testamentary power of appointment in her favor.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Silverman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.