This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Kline died testate. Under the terms of Kline's will, separate trusts were created for the benefit of her daughters. This case pertains to the trusts to benefit one of those daughters, Levy. Levy is the income beneficiary of the trusts; as such, she is entitled to distributions of the trusts' net income. The will permits the trustees to distribute to Levy such portions of principal that the trustees “in their absolute discretion, may deem necessary for any emergency affecting” Levy. The will states that Kline did “not anticipate the probability that any principal distributions [to Levy would] be required. Levy's three sons, Stephen Judson, William Judson, and Peter Judson (P) are the current remainder beneficiaries. Robert Friedman (trustee) and Levy are the current trustees of the trusts. P filed a petition in the Probate and Family Court alleging that, since 2020, improper distributions had been made to Levy in excess of the trusts' net income. The trustee timely filed an affidavit of objections to P's petition. Since being established, the trusts had “experienced significant growth of principal.” The trusts' income had “not kept pace.” Income in 2021 was approximately two percent of the principal's value. He explained that, had he modified the investment strategy by “shifting … to investments that pay higher yield and rate of income” so as to benefit Levy, the income beneficiary, the likely result would have been “lower long-term returns,” which would be detrimental to the remaindermen, P and his brothers. A modified strategy would likely have triggered a tax on the capital gains realized following the needed sale of equity assets. Auch a strategy would have favored Levy, the income beneficiary of the trusts, but not the remainder beneficiaries. The trustee exercised the power to adjust set forth in the MPIA and transferred some of the trusts' assets from principal to income, considering Levy's cost of living, Levy's other income sources, and the relevant factors set forth in the MPIA, including the intent of the testator. He distributed $90,000 in trust income to Levy, which comprised approximately 3.2 percent of the three-year average value of the trusts. After the shift of principal to income, the distributions to Levy “increased by approximately 1.1 [percent] of the total value” of the trusts' principal (averaged over the past three years). The trustee and Levy moved for summary judgment on the basis that the trustee was authorized to do so under the MPIA. P cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the will expressly precluded the trustee from invoking the MPIA's power to adjust. P claimed that Levy “repeatedly advised” him that her investment portfolio contained approximately $1 million and that she had “earned about $250,000.” Levy “lives alone in a five (5) bedroom, 3,800 square foot apartment” that cost her “almost $6,000 per month in 2015.” P asserted that Levy was not facing the type of emergency situation required to permit the trustees to invade the trusts' principal under the terms of the will. The court granted the trustees’ motion. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.