## Facts

- Nora Wells was declared physically incompetent in 1974, and Elvan G. Sanford was appointed guardian of her estate.
- Nora’s son, Hiram Wells, executed a will in 1977 creating a testamentary trust for Nora’s “use and benefit” during her life and authorizing the trustee to expend “such sums as may be necessary” for her “support and maintenance.”
- Hiram died in 1979; the trust corpus consisted solely of real property (80 acres) in which Nora held a life interest.
- Nora, age 91, lived in a nursing home with an unpaid bill of $23,749.74.
- Nora’s non-trust assets consisted of 109 acres of real property held in fee and managed under the guardianship.
- Sanford, as guardian, petitioned probate court to sell Nora’s guardianship assets to pay for her support.
- Nora’s children (remaindermen of Nora’s own property) petitioned chancery court to require Sanford, as trustee, to sell trust assets and apply the proceeds to Nora’s support.
- The consolidated trial court proceedings resulted in a ruling that Nora’s personal assets had to be used first and that the trust would be used only if her own assets were insufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether a testamentary trust directing the trustee to expend sums “necessary” for the beneficiary’s “support and maintenance” requires the beneficiary to exhaust personal assets before the trustee may use trust assets for support.
2. Whether the will, construed as a whole, makes the trust a primary source of support for the life beneficiary, with the remainder interest taking only what is left after support needs are met.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court.
- The Court held the trust was intended as a support trust for Nora’s benefit and could be used for her support without requiring depletion of her own assets first.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the construction that trust assets may be applied to Nora’s support during her lifetime.

## Legal Principles

- A testamentary trust authorizing expenditures for a beneficiary’s “support and maintenance” in “such sums as may be necessary” is generally construed as a support trust intended to provide for the beneficiary during life.
- Absent clear contrary intent, a support trust is not conditioned on the beneficiary first exhausting independent resources; the trustee may apply trust assets (including corpus, if needed) for the beneficiary’s support.
- Remaindermen take only what remains after the trust’s support purpose for the primary beneficiary has been satisfied.
- Will construction focuses on the testator’s intent as expressed by the instrument as a whole, giving effect to provisions that identify lifetime support as the dominant purpose.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will to make the testamentary trust an available, primary fund for Nora Wells’s lifetime support and maintenance, rejecting a requirement that she first exhaust her separately owned property before the trustee could use trust assets.


Estate of Wells v. Sanford, 281 Ark. 242, 663 S.W.2d 174 (Ark. 1984)