## Facts

- James Cedric Carter died testate in 1981, and his will created a testamentary trust for his wife, Lucile Rogers Carter.
- The trust gave Lucile a limited testamentary power of appointment over the trust property to a defined class that included Junior Harvey Brownfield and Virgie Helen Brownfield and certain descendants.
- The donor’s instrument required Lucile to exercise the power “by will specifically referring to and exercising this limited power of appointment,” and it barred appointment to Lucile, her estate, or her creditors.
- Lucile later executed a will that purported to devise a specific 16.19-acre parcel that was part of the trust corpus to Junior and Virgie Brownfield.
- Lucile’s will did not expressly mention the limited power of appointment or state that she was exercising any power of appointment.
- In proceedings administering Lucile’s estate, the probate court was asked to determine whether Lucile’s devise of the trust parcel was an effective exercise of the limited power of appointment.
- A trust remainderman, Roger Michael Carter, argued the devise failed the specific-reference condition and that the parcel should pass under the trust’s default distribution provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the court administering Lucile’s estate had authority to decide whether her will exercised a limited power of appointment created under her deceased husband’s testamentary trust.
2. Whether a will validly exercises a limited power of appointment that requires a specific reference when the will devises trust property to permissible appointees but does not expressly mention the power.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the probate court administering Lucile’s estate had authority to determine the effect of Lucile’s will on property subject to the power of appointment.
- The court held Lucile validly exercised the limited power of appointment by specifically devising a trust asset to members of the authorized class, despite the absence of an express reference to the power.
- The judgment upholding the validity of the appointment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A donee must exercise a power of appointment in conformity with the donor’s instrument, but courts may give effect to an exercise that substantially complies when the donee’s intent to exercise the power is clear.
- Specific-reference requirements are generally intended to prevent inadvertent exercises (such as via residuary clauses), not to defeat a deliberate, targeted disposition to permissible appointees.
- A will may effectively exercise a limited testamentary power of appointment without explicitly naming the power when the instrument unmistakably disposes of property subject to the power to persons within the permitted class, and no other apparent authority explains the disposition.
- Courts construe powers of appointment to effectuate the donor’s and donee’s intent where doing so does not frustrate the donor’s purpose for imposing execution formalities.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that administering Lucile’s estate included determining whether her will exercised the limited power of appointment, and that her specific devise of trust property to authorized appointees showed a deliberate exercise that satisfied the purpose of the donor’s specific-reference condition.


In re Estate of Carter, 760 N.E.2d 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)