## Facts

- A testator’s will bequeathed seventeen paintings to trustees of a Massachusetts charitable trust (the White Fund).
- The will directed the trustees to offer the paintings for exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, while permitting deposit for exhibition in a suitable public art gallery in Lawrence if one existed at the testator’s death or later.
- The will stated that ownership and control of the paintings were vested “permanently and inalienably” in the trustees.
- For many years, the museum displayed three paintings and kept fourteen in storage, while making the stored works available for viewing upon request.
- The trustees sought to sell some or all of the paintings, including potentially to private collectors, without first pursuing all public-exhibition alternatives.
- The museum filed an action for declaratory judgment that the trustees lacked authority to sell under the will.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the museum as to the three displayed paintings and reported the broader issue on the summary-judgment record; the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts took direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the will authorized the trustees of the charitable trust to sell any of the seventeen paintings bequeathed to be held “permanently and inalienably.”
2. Whether cy pres or equitable (reasonable) deviation could be used to modify the gift terms to permit sale of the paintings.

## Decision

- The court held the trustees had no authority to sell any of the paintings under the will’s plain language.
- The court rejected the claim that general trustee discretion implied a power to sell contrary to the express “permanently and inalienably” restriction and the will’s detailed exhibition directions.
- The court held cy pres was unavailable because the charitable purpose—public exhibition to cultivate appreciation of fine art, especially for Lawrence residents—was not impossible or impracticable to carry out.
- The court held equitable deviation was unavailable because no unforeseen circumstance was shown that would substantially impair accomplishment of the gift’s purpose if the no-sale restriction remained in place.
- The judgment for declaratory relief preventing sale was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Courts enforce unambiguous testamentary restrictions according to their plain meaning, giving primary weight to donor intent in charitable gifts.
- Language vesting property “permanently and inalienably” in charitable trustees for a specified use bars sale absent express authority.
- Trustee discretion clauses do not permit actions inconsistent with clear donor-imposed restrictions; discretion is limited to choices within the donor’s stated scheme (e.g., where and how exhibition occurs).
- Cy pres requires a showing that the specified charitable purpose is impossible or impracticable; increased convenience or financial advantage from sale is insufficient.
- Equitable deviation requires unforeseen circumstances that would substantially impair the trust’s purpose if administrative terms are followed; market changes and a desire to monetize assets do not satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the will’s explicit restriction that the paintings be held “permanently and inalienably” for public exhibition, holding the trustees could not sell any of the works and could not invoke cy pres or equitable deviation because the donor’s charitable purpose remained feasible.


Museum of Fine Arts v. Beland, 432 Mass. 540, 735 N.E.2d 1248 (Mass. 2000)