## Facts

- Joseph L. K. Snyder’s will created a residuary trust administered by named trustees.
- Article Sixth (C)(12) directed the trustees to distribute 20% of the trust residue “to such philanthropic causes as my Trustees may select.”
- The will did not define “philanthropic causes,” creating a dispute over whether the clause permitted noncharitable gifts.
- The trustees filed an action in the Chancery Division seeking instructions on the clause’s validity and the scope of their discretion.
- Snyder’s next of kin argued the clause was not limited to charitable purposes and was therefore void for uncertainty and/or for violating the rule against perpetuities, causing the property to pass by intestate succession.
- The Chancery Division heard evidence, including testimony from the will’s scrivener, and found Snyder’s probable intent was to confine the gifts to charitable purposes; it directed distributions only to qualifying charities under specified federal and state tax provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the testamentary phrase “philanthropic causes” should be construed as limited to charitable purposes or as broader noncharitable purposes.
2. If not limited to charitable purposes, whether the disposition is void for uncertainty and/or under the rule against perpetuities, requiring intestate succession to the next of kin.
3. If construed as charitable, whether and how the trustees’ selection of recipients may be limited by reference to tax-law charitable classifications.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Chancery Division’s judgment.
- The court construed “philanthropic causes,” in context, as a direction to make contributions solely for charitable purposes.
- Because the clause was charitable, it was not void for uncertainty and did not violate the rule against perpetuities.
- The trustees’ discretion was confined to recipients qualifying as charities under I.R.C. § 2055(a)(3) and N.J.S.A. 54:34-4(d), as amended.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to effect the testator’s probable intent as shown by the instrument and admissible surrounding circumstances, including evidence bearing on intended meaning of disputed terms.
- A gift framed in broad terms may be construed as charitable where the context supports that meaning, thereby preserving the testamentary plan.
- Noncharitable dispositions with indefinite beneficiaries or purposes risk invalidity for uncertainty and may implicate the rule against perpetuities; a charitable construction avoids those defects where consistent with probable intent.
- When a testamentary gift is construed as charitable, a court may restrict a trustee’s selection of recipients to legally recognized charitable entities, including those defined by applicable tax statutes referenced or reflected in the testator’s plan.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a residuary-trust direction to fund “philanthropic causes” by construing the term as charitable in light of the testator’s probable intent, thereby validating the gift against uncertainty and perpetuities challenges and limiting trustee discretion to tax-qualified charities.


Wilson v. Flowers, 277 A.2d 199 (N.J. 1971)