New York Law Review

Tag: In Re Estate of Nurse

  • In Re Estate of Nurse, 35 N.Y.2d 381 (1974): Validating Testamentary Pour-Over to Amended Inter Vivos Trust

    In Re Estate of Nurse, 35 N.Y.2d 381 (1974)

    A testamentary pour-over to an inter vivos trust is valid even if the trust was amended before the testator’s death, provided the amendment complies with EPTL 3-3.7 and the core charitable purpose remains consistent.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of a testamentary “pour-over” provision to a pre-existing charitable trust. Godfrey Nurse’s will directed his residuary estate to an inter vivos trust (the Godfrey Nurse Fund) established for a surgical laboratory at Harlem Hospital. Prior to Nurse’s death, a court judgment modified the trust to support broader surgical initiatives. The key issue was whether this modification terminated the trust, invalidating the pour-over, or merely amended it, allowing the residuary estate to pass to the Godfrey Nurse Fund. The Court of Appeals held that the judgment constituted a valid amendment under EPTL 3-3.7, preserving the pour-over and upholding the testator’s charitable intent. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding intestacy and liberally construing charitable bequests.

    Facts

    Dr. Godfrey Nurse created the Godfrey Nurse Fund, an irrevocable inter vivos charitable trust, in 1956 to fund a surgical laboratory at Harlem Hospital. The trust was funded with $105,000. In 1961, Dr. Nurse executed his will, which included a provision directing the remainder of his estate to the Godfrey Nurse Fund.
    The intended surgical laboratory was never established. In 1966, the trustees petitioned the Supreme Court for instructions on how to best use the trust funds. A stipulation was reached between the trustees, Dr. Nurse, the Attorney General, and the New York City Corporation Counsel to modify the trust’s purpose to support broader surgical programs and fellowships at Harlem Hospital. The Supreme Court issued a judgment in 1967 incorporating this stipulation. Godfrey Nurse died in 1968, without altering his will. The residuary estate was worth over $250,000.

    Procedural History

    After Dr. Nurse’s death, his executor sought a construction of the will’s tenth article (the residuary clause). The Surrogate’s Court found in favor of the charity, holding the Supreme Court judgement an amendment, not a termination, of the trust. The Appellate Division affirmed. The appellants, Dr. Nurse’s half-sisters, appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the 1967 Supreme Court judgment terminated the 1956 inter vivos trust, thereby causing the testamentary pour-over provision in Dr. Nurse’s will to lapse, or whether the judgment merely amended the trust, allowing the residuary estate to pass to the Godfrey Nurse Fund.

    Holding

    No, the 1967 Supreme Court judgment amended, rather than terminated, the 1956 inter vivos trust because the court-approved modification, made with the settlor’s consent, served to further Dr. Nurse’s general charitable intent and complied with the requirements of EPTL 3-3.7.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s judgment was an application of cy pres, modifying the trust’s specific purpose (the laboratory) while maintaining its overall charitable goal (supporting surgery at Harlem Hospital and the advancement of Black surgeons). The court emphasized the presumption against intestacy, particularly for residuary bequests, and the principle of liberally construing wills to uphold charitable purposes. It noted that the trust’s provision for termination if the laboratory ceased to function was never triggered. The court determined that the judgment incorporating the stipulation amended the trust, and that the trust continued in existence, albeit in altered form. EPTL 3-3.7(b)(1) dictates that the trust instrument is to be given effect in its amended form. The court addressed the formal requirements of EPTL 3-3.7, stating that the Supreme Court judgment, as a recordable instrument, satisfied the requirement that amendments be “executed and acknowledged”. Further, the court determined that the modification was accomplished with the testator’s consent, and embodied in a judicial decree, therefore protecting against the evils of fraud, chicanery or mistake underlying the Statute of Wills (EPTL 3-2.1). The court quoted Matter of Fowles, 222 N.Y. 222, 233 stating that the modification was permissible because, “Some reference to matters extrinsic is inevitable. Words are symbols, and we must compare them with things and persons and events…It is a question of degree”.