testamentary transfer

Ferdinand Straus died on July 1, 1934, leaving a last will and testament dated May 5, 1934, which contained a provision for a trust for his wife for her life of one-third of the decedent’s property both real and personal. On June 28, 1934, three days before his death, he executed trust agreements by which, in form at least, he transferred to trustees all his real and personal property. The beneficiary named in the trust agreement brought this action to compel the trustees to carry out its terms. The widow challenged the validity of the transfer to the trustees. The trial court found that the trust agreements were made, executed and delivered by said Ferdinand Straus for the purpose of evading and circumventing the laws of the State of New York, and particularly sections 18 and 83 of the Decedent Estate Law. The trial court also found that the settlor reserved the enjoyment of the entire income as long as he should live, and a right to revoke the trust at his will, and in general the powers granted to the trustees were in terms made subject to the settlor’s control during his life.

Donna Rae Egelhoff was married to David A. Egelhoff. Mr. Egelhoff was employed by the Boeing Company, which provided him with a life insurance policy and a pension plan. Both plans were governed by ERISA, and Mr. Egelhoff designated his wife as the beneficiary under both. In April 1994, the Egelhoffs divorced. Just over two months later, Mr. Egelhoff died intestate following an automobile accident. At that time, Mrs. Egelhoff remained the listed beneficiary under both the life insurance policy and the pension plan. The life insurance proceeds, totaling $46,000, were paid to her. Respondents Samantha and David Egelhoff, Mr. Egelhoff's children by a previous marriage, are his statutory heirs under state law. They sued petitioner in Washington state court to recover the life insurance proceeds. In a separate action, respondents also sued to recover the pension plan benefits. The trial courts, concluding that both the insurance policy and the pension plan "should be administered in accordance" with ERISA, granted summary judgment to petitioner in both cases. The Washington Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed. Applying the statute, it held that respondents were entitled to the proceeds of both the insurance policy and the pension plan. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. Courts have disagreed about whether statutes like that of Washington are pre-empted by ERISA. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.

In 1902, a trust indenture established Kingsbury Place as a private subdivision in St. Louis, with covenants requiring maintenance as desirable residence property of the highest class. The indenture empowers trustees and property owners to enforce its provisions against encroachment or injury. Except for one vacant lot, the subdivision features spacious two and three-story homes used exclusively as private residences. Louise Woodruff Johnston, owner of the house at #4 Kingsbury Place, died on January 14, 1973. Her will directed the executor, Mercantile Trust Co., to cause the home to be razed and the land sold, with proceeds transferred to the residue of the estate. Following Johnston's death, neighboring property owners and trustees for the Kingsbury Place Subdivision filed suit against the executor seeking an injunction to prevent demolition of the house. The plaintiffs contended that razing the home would adversely affect their property rights and the community. During trial, uncontradicted testimony established that the current value of the house and land totaled $40,000, while the empty lot would fetch no more than $5,000 after $4,350 in demolition costs. The St. Louis Commission on Landmarks and Urban Design had designated Kingsbury Place as a city landmark due to its architectural significance. Witnesses testified that demolition would depreciate adjoining property values by an estimated $10,000 and create a break in the urban design continuity. The trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and ruled against the plaintiffs on all issues. The plaintiffs then appealed the denial of their petition to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

In 1959, Victor Gruen purchased a painting by Gustav Klimt entitled Schloss Kammer am Attersee II for $8,000. Victor Gruen, an architect with residences in New York and Los Angeles, had a son, Michael Gruen, the plaintiff in this action. On April 1, 1963, Victor wrote a letter to Michael, then a student at Harvard, stating that he was giving him the painting for his twenty-first birthday but wished to retain possession during his lifetime. This original letter was later destroyed at Victor's direction. Subsequently, on May 22, 1963, Victor sent Michael another letter explaining that his lawyer advised against mentioning the life estate in writing for tax reasons and enclosed a substitute letter dated April 1, 1963, that conveyed the painting without reference to any retained interest. Michael retained both letters. The painting remained in Victor's possession, except for a brief loan to exhibitions between 1964 and 1965, and moved with him to Beverly Hills and then to Vienna, Austria. Victor Gruen died on February 14, 1980. After his death, Michael requested the painting from his stepmother, the defendant, who refused to turn it over. Michael then commenced this action seeking a declaration that he owned the painting. Following a seven-day nonjury trial, Special Term found that no valid inter vivos gift had been made. The Appellate Division reversed that determination and remitted the matter for a determination of the painting's value. After the value was set at $2,500,000, the defendant appealed directly to the Court of Appeals from the final judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff.