## Facts

- Charles Maurice Anderson died in 1984, unmarried and without issue, leaving a will disposing of substantial land and mineral interests.
- The will made specific bequests to his nephew, Howard W. Davis.
- The will created a trust administered by Deposit Guaranty National Bank, directing the trustee to retain control of approximately 960 acres (not to be sold) and use all income (timber, minerals, and other income) for the education of the descendants of F.A. Anderson, Sr. for 25 years from probate.
- During the trust term, multiple nieces, nephews, and other descendants of F.A. Anderson, Sr. were eligible to receive educational benefits.
- At the end of the stated term, the trust corpus and any undistributed income were to pass to Davis; if Davis died before termination, the remainder was to go to “the heirs of his body.”
- In a will-construction action, Davis challenged the trust under the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) and for alleged vagueness, and sought a reduction of the term to 21 years and confirmation that his remainder was devisable.
- The chancery court upheld the trust, construed Davis’s interest as a vested remainder subject to divestment, and modified the trust’s duration to ensure it would end within a permissible perpetuities period.

## Issues

1. Whether the educational trust violated the Rule Against Perpetuities.
2. Whether the remainders to Davis and, alternatively, to the “heirs of his body” were invalid future interests under the RAP.
3. Whether the trust failed for vagueness or indefiniteness in identifying beneficiaries and the educational purpose.
4. Whether the chancery court could equitably construe or modify the trust’s duration to avoid any RAP invalidity.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the decree with slight modification and upheld the trust as valid and enforceable.
- The Court treated Davis’s interest as a nonpossessory vested remainder arising at the testator’s death, subject to complete divestment if Davis died before trust termination.
- The Court concluded the descendants’ right to receive educational payments during the trust term did not create a remote vesting problem requiring invalidation of the trust.
- The Court approved limiting the trust to terminate within a perpetuities-compliant period (25 years from probate or 21 years from Davis’s death, whichever occurred first).
- The Court rejected the claim that “descendants of F.A. Anderson, Sr.” or “education” was too indefinite to administer.

## Legal Principles

- A remainder that vests in an ascertainable person at the testator’s death is a vested remainder for RAP purposes even if subject to divestment by an alternative gift upon a specified event.
- A testamentary trust directing distributions for education to a defined family class can be sufficiently definite to enforce when the class is identifiable and the purpose is administrable.
- Courts may construe testamentary instruments to preserve validity and effectuate testamentary intent, including adopting a construction that ensures termination within a permitted perpetuities period where the instrument reasonably allows it.
- A beneficiary holding a vested remainder subject to divestment may transfer that interest by conveyance or devise, with possession postponed until trust termination.

## Conclusion

The court sustained an educational family trust by characterizing the nephew’s remainder as vested subject to divestment, finding the beneficiary class and purpose administrable, and construing the trust to terminate within a perpetuities-valid period rather than declaring it void.


In re Estate of Anderson, 541 So. 2d 423 (Miss. 1989)