## Facts

- W.C. Adams died survived by his wife, Vera Adams; his daughter, Adelia Adams Coker; and two grandchildren, Andrea and Wayne Coker.
- Adams’s will placed the residue of his estate in a trust administered by First Alabama Bank as trustee.
- The trust directed the trustee to use income and principal for Vera’s “maintenance and support” during her lifetime.
- On Vera’s death, the trust provided similar lifetime maintenance and support benefits for Adelia.
- After Adelia’s death, the trust provided lifetime maintenance and support benefits for the grandchildren.
- Upon the death of a grandchild, that grandchild’s share was to be distributed “free and clear” to the grandchild’s descendants as each descendant reached age 21.
- The will included a perpetuities “savings clause” providing that the trusts would not continue beyond the time legally permitted for vesting of any beneficiary’s share, and that, at the end of the permissible period, the trust would terminate and distribute to the then-beneficiaries in the same proportions described in the will.
- A dispute arose whether the descendant-at-21 provisions could cause interests to vest beyond the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities, given the possibility of after-born descendants not in being at the testator’s death.

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary trust’s successive life interests and distributions to grandchildren’s descendants at age 21 created future interests that could vest outside the Rule Against Perpetuities.
2. Whether the will’s savings clause and overall testamentary plan required a construction that preserves the trust by ensuring vesting within the permissible perpetuities period.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court held the trust should be construed to comply with the Rule Against Perpetuities and should not be treated as wholly void.
- The Court relied on the testator’s intent to create a family-maintenance trust and the express savings clause indicating an intent to avoid any perpetuities violation.
- The Court rejected the trial court’s broader invalidation and altered the judgment to require administration of the trust under a construction that prevents continuation beyond the legally permitted vesting period.
- The Court reversed and modified portions of the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its construction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities, a future interest is valid only if it must vest, if at all, within 21 years after a life in being at the creation of the interest.
- Wills are construed, where reasonably possible, to validate dispositions and effectuate the testator’s dominant intent rather than defeat the testamentary plan.
- A perpetuities savings clause may be given effect to terminate a trust at the end of the permissible vesting period and to accelerate distribution to beneficiaries then entitled, preserving the intended proportional scheme.
- When a will contains an express anti-perpetuities directive, courts may adopt a construction that ensures all interests vest or fail within the Rule’s time limits instead of invalidating the trust in its entirety.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the residuary trust by construing it—guided by the savings clause and the testator’s intent—to require termination and distribution within the perpetuities period, reversing the trial court to the extent it invalidated the trust more broadly than necessary.


First Ala. Bank of Montgomery v. Adams, 382 So. 2d 1104 (Ala. 1980)