## Facts

- Timothy C. Leeds (domiciled in New York) created a trust giving his brother, James Leeds, a life interest and a general testamentary power of appointment over the trust property.
- James exercised Timothy’s power and also disposed of his own property by placing both in a trust for his daughter, Mary Elizabeth (Leeds) Williams, for life, granting Mary a general testamentary power of appointment.
- Mary’s will disposed of “the residue of my estate and any property over which I have a power of appointment” in a single trust: life benefits for her two children, then to their issue, and if none, to named charitable organizations.
- At Mary’s death, her two children were alive, but they were not in being at the time of Timothy’s death.
- Mary’s trustees petitioned for instructions on (i) which law governed and (ii) whether the interests created through Mary’s exercise of the power violated the rule against perpetuities and, if so, where invalid interests would pass.
- Charitable appointees argued that “selective allocation” should treat Timothy-derived property as already exhausted, insulating the charitable remainder from perpetuities analysis tied to Timothy.

## Issues

1. Whether Massachusetts or New York law governed the validity under the rule against perpetuities of (a) Massachusetts real estate and (b) personal property subject to a power of appointment created by a New York decedent.
2. Whether, measuring the perpetuities period from the donor’s death, the future interests created by Mary’s exercise of a general testamentary power (including remainders to issue and alternative gifts to charities) were valid.
3. Whether Mary’s residuary disposition of her estate “and any property” subject to a power showed an intent to “capture” the appointive property into her own estate.
4. If some appointed interests were void for remoteness, whether the affected property passed under the donor’s will or to Mary’s estate by resulting trust (and thus by intestacy).

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts law governed the perpetuities validity of interests in Massachusetts real estate created through the exercise of the power.
- The court also applied Massachusetts law to the personal property under the power because the trust administration and exercise of the power were intended to be centered in Massachusetts (including Massachusetts trustees, Massachusetts beneficiaries/donee, Massachusetts real estate, and probate-court supervision).
- The successive life estates were valid, but the remainder interests dependent on events at the deaths of Mary’s children (to their issue, and alternative charitable dispositions) were too remote and void under the rule against perpetuities when measured from Timothy’s death.
- Mary’s residuary clause created a single trust for her residue and the appointive property, showing an intent to capture the appointive property into her own estate.
- Because the appointive property was captured, the portions of Mary’s appointed limitations that were void for remoteness passed to Mary’s estate by resulting trust and were distributable as intestate property, rather than passing under Timothy’s will.
- The court rejected the charities’ attempt to avoid this result through selective allocation.

## Legal Principles

- For perpetuities analysis of interests created by exercising a general testamentary power of appointment, the measuring point is the donor’s death (the creation of the power), not the donee’s death.
- The validity under the rule against perpetuities of interests in Massachusetts real estate is governed by Massachusetts law, even if the power was created by a nonresident’s will.
- Massachusetts may apply its perpetuities rule to personal property subject to a power where the circumstances indicate the donor intended Massachusetts-centered administration and exercise of the power.
- A residuary clause disposing of the testator’s residue “and any property” subject to a power of appointment can manifest an intent to capture appointive assets into the donee’s estate.
- When appointive assets are captured and the donee’s attempted future limitations are void for remoteness, the invalid portions pass to the donee’s estate by resulting trust and are distributed as intestate property (absent an effective alternative disposition).

## Conclusion

The court applied Massachusetts perpetuities law to both Massachusetts realty and connected personalty subject to a general testamentary power, upheld successive life estates, voided remote remainders measured from the donor’s death, and held that the donee’s residuary clause captured the appointive property so that invalid interests passed to the donee’s estate by resulting trust and intestacy.


Amerige v. Att’y Gen., 324 Mass. 648, 88 N.E.2d 126 (1949)