## Facts

- In 1961, C. Howard Candler, Jr. and Ruth O. Candler created an irrevocable trust in settlement of Howard’s support obligations; Trust Company of Georgia (now SunTrust Bank) served as trustee.
- The trust paid net income to Ruth for life.
- After Ruth’s death, net income was to be distributed among the then-living children of Howard and Ruth, with per stirpes income to issue of any child who predeceased Ruth.
- Upon the death of the last surviving child, the corpus was to be divided equally among the then-living grandchildren, with per stirpes distribution to the issue of any deceased grandchild.
- Ruth died in 1996, leaving three surviving children; the trust moved into the children’s income stage.
- The three surviving children filed a petition to construe the trust and then executed a statutory renunciation of their trust interests under OCGA § 53-2-115.
- The superior court held the renunciation accelerated the remainder and ordered immediate distribution of the trust corpus to the 13 then-living grandchildren.
- William J. Linkous, Jr., appointed guardian ad litem for unborn and otherwise unrepresented descendants, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust instrument showed an intent to prohibit acceleration of the remainder interests when the current income beneficiaries renounced their interests.
2. Whether the surviving children’s renunciation under OCGA § 53-2-115 entitled the then-living grandchildren to immediate distribution of the corpus.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the superior court.
- The court held the trust impliedly prohibited acceleration and required continuation until the death of the last surviving child.
- The trustee was not authorized to distribute the corpus immediately to the then-living grandchildren based on the children’s renunciation.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling rule in trust construction is to ascertain settlor intent from the four corners of the instrument.
- A prohibition on acceleration need not be express; it may be implied from the structure and language of the trust, including timing conditions and class-defining terms.
- Renunciation statutes allow a beneficiary to refuse an interest but do not permit beneficiaries to alter dispositive timing that the settlors fixed in the instrument.
- Where early distribution would defeat future contingent interests (including unborn members of a class), trust language tying distribution to a future event can evidence an intent against acceleration.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court held that the trust’s staged distribution scheme—especially the requirement that the corpus be distributed only upon the death of the last surviving child to the “then living” grandchildren and their issue—showed an implied intent to bar acceleration, so the children’s renunciation could not trigger immediate distribution of the trust corpus.


Linkous v. Candler, 508 S.E.2d 657 (Ga. 1998)