## Facts

- Robert O. McKenzie died testate leaving a holographic will.
- The disputed residuary clause stated: “I want a trust to be formed payable as a reward to the person who decides the cause of Rhomatoid [sic] Arthritis and a cure for the same to the satisfaction of the Medical Board of the University of Calif. at L. A.”
- The will did not expressly name a trustee.
- The executor petitioned the probate court to determine interests in the estate and for instructions.
- The California Attorney General asserted the clause created a valid charitable trust.
- The Regents of the University of California stated they were willing and qualified to serve as trustee.
- An heir contested the clause and claimed the residue should pass by intestate succession.
- The probate court ruled the clause did not create a charitable trust, failed as a private trust for indefiniteness and because vesting might violate the rule against perpetuities, and ordered distribution of the residue to heirs by intestacy.
- The Attorney General appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary clause created a valid charitable trust where the residue was to be paid “as a reward” to the person who discovers the cause and cure of rheumatoid arthritis to the satisfaction of a specified medical board.
2. If not charitable, whether the clause failed as a private trust for lack of identifiable beneficiaries and because the interest might not vest within the period required by the rule against perpetuities.
3. Whether failure to name a trustee rendered the disposition invalid.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the probate order and directed recognition and administration of the disposition as a charitable trust.
- The court held the trust’s dominant purpose was charitable: advancing medical science and relieving disease for the public benefit.
- Payment to an individual discoverer did not negate the charitable character because the reward was incidental to the public purpose and the eligible class was indefinite.
- The absence of a named trustee did not defeat the trust; a court may supply a trustee, and the Regents were available and willing to serve.
- Because the trust was charitable, perpetuities-based objections applicable to private trusts did not invalidate the disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A testamentary fund intended to incentivize scientific discovery that benefits public health can constitute a charitable trust even if the ultimate payment is framed as a “reward” to a single recipient.
- A charitable trust is assessed by its primary purpose and public benefit, not by the fact that an individual may ultimately receive funds.
- Charitable trusts do not fail merely because the settlor did not name a trustee; courts may appoint or recognize a trustee to carry out charitable intent.
- Perpetuities concerns that defeat private future interests generally do not invalidate a trust whose dominant purpose is charitable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the residuary provision as a valid charitable trust aimed at promoting discovery of the cause and cure of rheumatoid arthritis, reversed the intestate distribution order, and required administration of the residue consistent with the decedent’s charitable intent.


In re McKenzie's Estate, 227 Cal. App. 2d 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)