## Facts

- Thomas Jefferson Coolidge created an irrevocable inter vivos trust in 1913, retaining broad powers to amend and to appoint “new or different” beneficiaries.
- The trust directed semiannual income payments to specified descendants and relatives, including a share to the living issue of Eleonora R. Sears.
- The trust principal was to be distributed upon the first occurrence of either: (1) the death of the last survivor of Coolidge’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who were alive at his death; or (2) the youngest surviving grandchild who was alive at his death reaching age fifty.
- Coolidge died in 1920.
- The second alternative event occurred in 1951 when the youngest grandchild, William A. Coolidge, reached age fifty.
- Beneficiaries and other interested parties sought declaratory relief on whether the remainder gifts of principal were valid under the Rule Against Perpetuities.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust’s remainder gifts of principal were void under the Rule Against Perpetuities because one alternative termination event could be too remote.
2. Whether, in applying the Rule Against Perpetuities to interests created through a retained power to amend/appoint, the court may consider the actual facts and timing associated with the exercise of the power and the event that in fact occurred.
3. Whether the actual occurrence of a non-remote alternative condition for distribution can validate the remainder gifts despite a different alternative that might have violated the rule.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decrees declaring the remainder gifts of principal invalid and void.
- The court held the remainder dispositions valid and rejected the conclusion that the trust principal and accumulated unpaid income must pass to the settlor’s estate.
- The court permitted distribution of principal to the designated takers upon the occurrence of the non-remote triggering event (the youngest grandchild attaining age fifty).

## Legal Principles

- When evaluating the Rule Against Perpetuities in the setting of a power to amend or appoint trust interests, compliance may be assessed in light of the facts existing when the power is effectively exercised and the interests actually vest, even if vesting was not certain at the settlor’s death.
- Where a dispositive provision is framed in the alternative, the actual occurrence of an alternative condition that results in vesting within the perpetuities period can be sufficient to sustain the gifts, notwithstanding that another alternative condition might have been too remote.
- A decree awarding trust principal to the settlor’s estate on the theory that the remainder gifts are void cannot stand if the remainder interests are valid under the perpetuities analysis.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trust’s remainder gifts against a perpetuities challenge, reasoning that the interests, as they in fact vested upon the occurrence of the non-remote alternative condition and in connection with the retained power to amend/appoint, satisfied the Rule Against Perpetuities and did not revert to the settlor’s estate.


Sears v. Coolidge, 108 N.E.2d 563 (Mass. 1952)