## Facts

- Carrie L. Munn executed a will in 1913 devising the “Wellington Hotel Property” to a testamentary trust for the benefit of her five children.
- The will directed that the trust’s net income be paid to the five children during their lives; after the death of the last surviving child, the trust corpus would pass to Munn’s grandchildren.
- Paragraph Seventh of the will contained an express spendthrift restriction stating that each beneficiary’s income was payable only upon the beneficiary’s personal receipt, that no beneficiary had power to “anticipate” or “encumber” the income, and that the income was not subject to legal process for the beneficiary’s debts until paid out.
- Two of Munn’s children, Charles A. Munn and Gurnee Munn, were named trustees of the testamentary trust.
- A 1914 codicil amended Paragraph Seventh by (1) giving each of the five children an equal share in the proceeds if the Wellington Hotel Property were sold, and (2) granting the trustees (Charles and Gurnee) discretionary authority to sell the property and distribute the proceeds as directed by the testamentary plan.
- After Munn’s death and years into administration, Charles and Gurnee executed assignments (in 1939) transferring their respective life-income benefits from the trust to their sister, Carrie L. Waterbury, who was also one of the five income beneficiaries.
- A controversy later arose over whether those assignments were effective or barred by the spendthrift language in Paragraph Seventh.
- Waterbury petitioned the circuit court to validate the assignments; the circuit court held that the spendthrift provision was not revoked by the codicil and that the assignments were void. Waterbury appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Paragraph Seventh of the 1913 will created a valid spendthrift trust that barred beneficiaries from assigning their future income before it was paid to them.
2. Whether the 1914 codicil’s changes (equal division of sale proceeds and discretionary power of sale and distribution) revoked or modified the spendthrift restrictions so as to permit the assignments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed.
- The court held the will’s language created a valid spendthrift trust under Florida law.
- The court held the codicil did not revoke or nullify the spendthrift restrictions.
- Because the spendthrift clause remained effective, the assignments of the beneficiaries’ life-income interests to Waterbury were invalid.

## Legal Principles

- A testator may create a spendthrift trust that restrains both voluntary alienation by beneficiaries and attachment or other legal process by creditors as to undistributed income.
- When a will directs that income be paid only upon a beneficiary’s personal receipt and prohibits anticipation or encumbrance, an attempted assignment of future income contrary to that direction is ineffective against the trust.
- A will and codicil are construed together; a codicil changes the will only to the extent the later terms are inconsistent with the earlier ones.
- A codicil that alters administration (such as granting a discretionary power to sell trust property and distribute proceeds) does not, without clear language, repeal express protective restrictions attached to the beneficiaries’ interests.

## Conclusion

Waterbury v. Munn held that Carrie L. Munn’s will created a valid spendthrift trust that barred beneficiaries from transferring their undistributed life-income interests, and that the 1914 codicil authorizing sale of the Wellington Hotel Property and equal division of sale proceeds did not repeal the anti-assignment protections; therefore, the 1939 assignments by Charles and Gurnee to their sister were void and the decree invalidating them was affirmed.


Waterbury v. Munn, 32 So. 2d 603 (1947)