Opinion
No. ED 81603
August 26, 2003
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Honorable Timothy J. Wilson.
Janet F. Catalona, Patricia K. Susi, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant.
Sarah E. Ledgerwood, Jefferson City, Missouri, Richard A. Wunderlich, St. Louis, Missouri, Mitchell A. Margo, Clayton, Missouri, M. Blumenthal, Clayton, Missouri, for Respondents.
Before Draper III, P.J., Gaertner Sr., J., and Russell, J.
Louise Obermeyer and Elizabeth Salmon (hereinafter and collectively, "Appellant") are heirs of Joseph B. Kimbrough, Doctor of Dental Surgery (hereinafter, "Dentist") and brought suit for declaratory judgment and construction of Dentist's inter vivos trust (hereinafter, "the Trust"). The trial court held Dentist established the Trust with a general charitable intent and applied the cy pres doctrine ruling in favor of Washington University. Appellant appeals the trial court's application of the cy pres doctrine to the Trust.
In 1890, Dentist enrolled in the Missouri Dental College and graduated with his Doctor of Dental Surgery in 1894. Missouri Dental College became part of Washington University in 1892. Dentist was a practicing dentist throughout his career and served on the faculty of the Washington University Dental School.
Dentist established the Trust in 1945, providing for income and principal encroachment rights for the lifetimes of his niece and nephews. The Trust was amended in 1954 and 1955. After the death of the last named relative, the Trust provides that "the property then constituting the trust estate shall be paid over and distributed free from trust unto Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, for the exclusive use and benefit of its Dental Alumni Development Fund."
Prior to his death in 1963, Dentist made eleven gifts to Washington University. These gifts included donations toward the Washington University Alumni Fund Association for the Dental Alumni Development Fund, the Washington University School of Medicine, the Second Century Development Program, the Alumni Fund, and the Century Club.
In 1991, Washington University closed its Dental School and merged faculty, staff, and programs into its Medical School and main campus. Dental medicine continues to be a component of education at Washington University Medical School, but there is no exclusive means for students to receive a dentistry degree.
In 2000, the last living named beneficiary under the Trust passed away. Appellant then brought this suit for construction of the Trust, seeking a declaration that the Trust failed and, as heirs, Appellant be granted the Trust proceeds. The trial court found Dentist had a general charitable intent to further dental medicine at Washington University and would not have wanted his gift so narrowly drawn and inflexible that it could not be used if the specifically named fund lapsed. Accordingly, the trial court stated that the Trust assets are to be used to further dental medicine at Washington University by creating, establishing, funding, and maintaining one or two chairs in Dentist's name for research and practice in cleft palate/craniofacial deformities and/or for maxillofacial surgery and prosthodontics. This appeal follows.
Upon review, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976); Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Mo.App.S.D. 1995). Appellant raises two points on appeal; however, the second point is made moot by our disposition of the first point on appeal.
Appellant's first point on appeal alleges the trial court erred in holding the Trust was established with a general rather than a specific charitable intent. We agree.
Both parties agree the Trust was created with a charitable intent benefiting the Dental Alumni Development Fund. Both parties also agree the Trust has failed since the Dental School was closed and the Dental Alumni Development Fund no longer exists. Next, we must determine whether the Trust was created with general or specific charitable intent. Comfort v. Higgins, 576 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Mo.banc 1978). If there is a valid charitable trust which may have terms which are impracticable or impossible to carry out and the settlor intended a general charitable trust, a court may invoke the cy pres doctrine.Levings v. Danforth, 512 S.W.2d 207, 211 (Mo.App.W.D. 1974). However, when the settlor intended a specific charitable trust, "then a resulting trust or reversion for the settlor or his [ sic] heirs will result," and the cy pres doctrine is not applicable. Comfort, 576 S.W.2d at 336.
Appellant believes the trial court inappropriately found Dentist had a general charitable intent rather than a specific charitable intent. Specific charitable intent is found:
where it is determined that the settlor's intent was to aid that kind of charity only in a particular way or by a particular method or means, that he [ sic] intended to make no gift to that general kind of charity other than by the specified particular means, that he [ sic] intended that, if the specified particular means failed, the gift failed, and that the corpus of the trust estate could no longer be used for the general type or kind of charity he [ sic] desired to assist.
Id. ( citing Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 237 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. 1951). A settlor has general charitable intent when the gift applies to a "continuing problem." Thatcher v. Lewis, 76 S.W.2d 677, 683 (Mo. 1934). Gifts made "to aid education, science, literature, the poor, the sick, and so on" are considered to be gifts that demonstrate a general charitable intent. Comfort, 576 S.W.2d at 338. Yet, in that event, it must be determined whether the settlor "intended to benefit all those affected by the continuing problem, or only certain of those persons."Id.
In the instant case, it was clear that throughout his life Dentist was proud to be a dentist and supported dental education at his alma matter, Washington University Dental School. The Trust devise was drawn narrowly providing that the corpus use would be exclusively for the Dental Alumni Development Fund which was created to support the continuation of the Dental School. By indicating the corpus was to be used exclusively by the Dental Alumni Development Fund, Dentist evinced his specific charitable intent. Dentist donated to Washington University education in his lifetime and could have donated the corpus to Washington University's general development fund. However, he used unambiguous and binding language that excluded all other educational opportunities at Washington University; he only wanted to benefit the continuation of the Dental School.
Thus, we conclude Dentist established the Trust with a specific charitable intent. The corpus must revert to his heirs because the cy pres doctrine is not applicable.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Gary M. Gaertner, Sr., J., and Mary R. Russell, J., concur.