## Facts

- Abraham Cherniack and Rose Cherniack married in 1943; Abraham died in 1961, and the marriage produced no children.
- On August 8, 1957, Abraham executed a revocable inter vivos trust naming a bank as trustee and transferred nearly $200,000 in assets, representing most of his property, to the trust.
- The trust paid net income to Abraham for life; after his death, income would go to surviving brothers, and after the last brother’s death, the corpus would pass to the brothers’ children per stirpes.
- Abraham retained broad powers to amend or revoke the trust at any time.
- A December 8, 1960 amendment authorized invasion of principal if Abraham became incapable of managing his affairs, including to discharge Abraham’s legal obligations to support Rose during Abraham’s lifetime.
- On August 14, 1957, Abraham executed a will naming the bank as executor; it granted Rose a life use in the marital home (with remainder to brothers) and one-third of the residuary estate outright.
- Rose did not know of the trust until after Abraham suffered a stroke in December 1960, and did not know of the will until after Abraham’s death; the will was admitted to probate in June 1961.
- Rose sued to invalidate the trust as (i) an improper testamentary disposition lacking will formalities and (ii) a fraud intended to defeat her statutory rights as a surviving spouse; the trial court upheld the trust.

## Issues

1. Whether a revocable inter vivos trust under which the settlor retains lifetime income and powers of amendment and revocation is an invalid testamentary disposition absent will formalities.
2. Whether such a trust is void as a fraud on the surviving spouse’s statutory marital rights when it substantially reduces the probate estate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed judgment for the defendants and upheld the trust.
- The court held the trust was not testamentary because it took effect upon execution and created present equitable interests in the beneficiaries.
- The court held the trust was not a fraud on the widow’s marital rights because it was a genuine inter vivos transfer rather than a sham designed only in form to defeat statutory rights.

## Legal Principles

- A trust is not invalid as an attempted testamentary disposition merely because the settlor retains income for life and reserves powers to modify or terminate.
- An inter vivos trust differs from a will because it is effective upon creation and can confer present equitable interests even if enjoyment is deferred.
- A surviving spouse’s statutory share attaches to the probate estate; property validly transferred during life is excluded.
- A lifetime transfer may be set aside as a fraud on marital rights only where it is illusory in substance (a transfer in form only) and the settlor does not truly part with ownership during life.

## Conclusion

Connecticut upheld a revocable lifetime trust funded with most of the settlor’s property, concluding it created present beneficial interests and therefore was not testamentary, and further concluding it was not a fraud on the widow’s statutory rights because it was a real inter vivos disposition even though it reduced what would pass through probate.


Cherniack v. Home Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Meriden, 151 Conn. 367, 198 A.2d 58 (Conn. 1964)