## Facts

- Martin Luther Kohler died in 1916, leaving a will that created a trust for his two daughters, Ruth K. Bates and Else K. Campbell.
- The trustee was directed to pay trust income to each daughter for life.
- Kohler’s will provided that, on a daughter’s death, her share of principal would be distributed either (a) “to her issue per stirpes as such issue shall arrive at the age of twenty-five years,” or (b) “to such issue in such manner and in such sums as my said daughters shall by their respective wills direct.”
- Else K. Campbell later died testate and attempted to exercise the testamentary power referenced in Kohler’s will through her residuary clause.
- Else’s will divided the residue of her estate, including the appointive property, into four equal shares.
- One of the four shares was given to Else’s son, Robert F. Campbell, if he survived her.
- Else’s will further provided that if Robert did not survive her, his share would fall back into her residuary estate and increase the remaining residuary shares.
- Robert predeceased Else and left children (the appellants), who were Else’s descendants and therefore her “issue.”
- After Else’s death, Fidelity Bank, as trustee of the Kohler trust, filed an account and petition for adjudication of distribution in the Orphans’ Court.
- The trustee’s proposed distribution followed Else’s will and made no distribution to Robert’s children.
- Robert’s children received no notice of the account or adjudication, and the Orphans’ Court entered an adjudication confirming the account and approving the proposed distribution (December 6, 1973).
- Robert’s children later petitioned to reopen the adjudication, alleging they were within the class “issue” and that Kohler’s will did not permit Else to cut them out entirely.
- The Orphans’ Court sustained preliminary objections to the petition, holding that Robert’s children lacked standing because, under the adjudication, they had no interest in the trust property.
- Robert’s children appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether Kohler’s clause authorizing distribution “to such issue in such manner and in such sums” gave Else a power to exclude entirely some of her issue from taking any part of the trust principal.
2. Whether Robert’s children, as Else’s issue who received nothing under the prior adjudication, had a sufficient interest to reopen the Orphans’ Court adjudication that approved the trustee’s distribution without notice to them.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the power to appoint “to such issue” did not authorize Else to eliminate members of the class of “issue” from all participation in the remainder.
- The Court concluded that Robert’s children were members of the class “issue” identified by Kohler and therefore had a beneficial interest affected by the adjudication.
- Because they alleged a legally recognized interest in the trust property, Robert’s children had standing to seek to reopen the adjudication.
- The decree sustaining preliminary objections was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A testamentary power to distribute property “to such issue in such manner and in such sums” is a special power limited to the class of “issue”; it permits variation in manner and amounts among the class but does not permit removing class members from taking altogether when the donor’s language shows an intent to benefit the entire class.
- The phrase “such issue” refers back to the donor-identified class (“issue per stirpes”) and does not grant the donee authority to redefine the class of takers.
- A petitioner seeking to reopen an Orphans’ Court adjudication must show a legal interest in the property affected; if a proper construction of the governing instrument places the petitioner in the class of beneficiaries, standing exists even if a prior adjudication omitted the petitioner.
- An adjudication approving trust distribution based on an incorrect construction of the donor’s dispositive language may be subject to reopening when affected beneficiaries were not given notice and assert an interest recognized under the controlling instrument.

## Conclusion

Estate of Kohler held that Kohler’s will identified the daughter’s “issue” as the ultimate takers and allowed the daughter only to control how and in what amounts the property would be distributed among that class; it did not permit a plan that resulted in total exclusion of a deceased child’s descendants. Because Robert Campbell’s children were Else Campbell’s issue and thus within the class Kohler intended to benefit, they had standing to reopen the prior adjudication approving a distribution that omitted them, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Estate of Kohler, 344 A.2d 469 (1975)