## Facts

- Solomon Bell devised his property by will and codicil through a trust arrangement placing legal title in Ellen L. Bell (Robert B. Bell’s wife) as trustee.
- The arrangement measured beneficial enjoyment by Robert’s life and provided for a remainder to Robert’s heirs, subject to a power of appointment granted to Robert.
- Robert’s power of appointment permitted him, during his lifetime, to appoint the property to himself or to others.
- Gilman held a judgment against Robert and sought equitable relief to subject the devised/trust property to satisfaction of that judgment.
- Gilman’s theory was that Robert’s ability to appoint the property to himself made the property effectively available to Robert and therefore reachable by creditors.
- The trial court denied the creditor’s request to reach the property.
- Gilman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a judgment creditor may reach property when the debtor holds only an unexercised power of appointment over the property, including a power permitting appointment to the debtor himself.
2. Whether an unexercised power of appointment constitutes an equitable estate or other attachable property interest of the donee.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief.
- The court held that a mere power of appointment, before exercise, is not an equitable estate or property interest subject to execution or other creditor process.
- Because Robert had not exercised the power in his own favor, the creditor could not subject the property to the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- An unexercised power of appointment is a personal authority conferred by the creating instrument and is not, by itself, “property” of the donee.
- Creditors generally may reach the debtor’s property interests, but may not treat an unexercised power of appointment as an asset subject to levy or attachment.
- The fact that a power could be exercised in favor of the donee does not create present ownership or a vested estate in the donee absent an actual exercise.
- Courts will not allow creditor process to defeat the donor’s testamentary plan by converting an unexercised power into an attachable estate.

## Conclusion

The court refused to permit a judgment creditor to reach trust/devised property based solely on the debtor’s unexercised power of appointment, even where the debtor could have appointed the property to himself, because the power did not constitute a present, attachable property interest.


Gilman v. Bell, 99 Ill. 144 (Ill. 1881)