Hynson v. Jeffries

697 So.2d 792 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Robert was the owner of substantial oil and gas properties. Robert left a detailed last will and testament. The will gave to trustees of the Robert C. Hynson Marital Deduction Trust all interests in oil and gas of any kind. During the lifetime of Robert's widow, P, all income after the payment of certain expenses would be disbursed to her. There was also an intent provision, indicating that the controlling consideration was that the trust qualifies as a marital deduction trust. Any provision that would prevent the deduction from being received would be changed as necessary. The trustees were designated as D and Malcolm Cooper. The primary beneficiary was P. The gross income of the trust property and estate was to be used first for the payment of all necessary expenses, taxes, and repairs or other charges against the trust property or incurred in connection with the use or management of the said trust property and the administration of this trust including reasonable Trustees' fees. The balance of the income from the trust property and estate remaining after the payment of all such items of expense shall be regarded as net income. However, capital gains on the sale or exchange of trust property shall not be regarded as net income but shall become a part of the corpus or principal of the trust. All of the income of the trust was to be paid to P during her lifetime. Upon the death of P, any undistributed income was to be paid over to P's estate. The remaining corpus was to be divided into three equal parts. One part shall be distributed per stirpes to the descendants of Robert's daughter, Julie Hynson Jeffries. One part shall be distributed per stirpes to the descendants of Carolyn Harris Hynson and one part was to be distributed per stirpes to the descendants of Robert's son, Robert Gardiner Hunson. After the distributions, the trust was to be terminated. Robert passed and P claimed she was entitled to all royalty payments. P sued D and both parties moved for summary judgment. P claimed she should prevail on the text of the will, the open mines doctrine, and Mississippi’s Uniform Principal and Income Law (UPIL). P claimed a common law interpretation related to waste and that royalties are part of the estate and should be invested with the life tenant receiving only the interest on that investment. The court ruled for D and P appealed.