Gaither v. Fidelity-Baltimore National Bank & Trust Co.

Bruñe, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The administrator c.t.a. of the estates of James H. Gaither and Eleanor B. Gaither, which was also the trustee under their respective wills, brought this suit for the purpose of obtaining instructions as to its duties in each of those four capacities. Several questions were raised, but this appeal presents only one. This is whether, under the proper construction of the will of James H. Gaither, his mother, Rosa B. Gaither, and his sister, Mary R. Gaither, are limited to gifts aggregating $3,000 and $2,000, respectively, or are entitled to receive greater amounts in case of their future need for more.

The trial court held them -limited to the respective sums stated, and they appealed. The appellees are the residuary legatee, The Western Maryland College, and the original complainant in its capacity as administrator c.t.a. of the estate of James H. Gaither. James H. and Eleanor B. Gaither were husband and wife. They had one child, a daughter, Eleanor B. Gaither, who attended and graduated from Western Maryland College.

Shortly after her graduation she was married, but unfortunately she developed tuberculosis very soon thereafter and died about a year later. On February 11, 1947, James H. Gaither executed his will, and on the same day Eleanor B. Gaither executed hers. Both wills were in the handwriting of Mr. Gaither, and the same persons witnessed both wills. The husband gave and bequeathed all of his property, real and personal, to his wife; and the wife gave and bequeathed all of her property, real and personal, to the husband.

These were the initial gifts set forth in each will, and were obviously ¹¹ of primary importance. Then followed alternative provisions which were to take effect in the event that the wife or husband should not survive the testator or testatrix. As between the two wills there were some striking similarities and also some very marked differences in these alternative provisions. The most striking similarity was in the disposition of the residuary estates, and these clauses were the most important, since under each will the bulk of the estate would fall into the residue.

In almost identical terms the husband and wife left their residuary estates in trust to be used as a scholarship fund at Western Maryland College in memory of their deceased daughter, and each directed “the trustee to handle the estate so as to provide a scholarship for as long a period as possible.” Each will contained a bequest of $1,000 to the Gaithers’ son-in-law, and the disposition of Mr. Gaither’s household furniture and effects was to be in accordance with the provisions of his wife’s will. The gifts, other than the pecuniary bequests to the son-in-law and the bequests of furniture, which were payable or distributable prior to the determination of the residuary estates, were quite different as between the two wills. The husband’s will contained these provisions immediately following the bequest to his son-in-law: “The balance of my estate I leave in trust to be disposed of as follows: “I direct the trustee to pay to my Mother, Rosa B. Gaither, at any time she may be in need any money necessary up to the extent of $3,000.00 (Three Thousand Dollars). “I direct the trustee to pay to my sister, Mary R. Gaither, at any time she may be in need any money necessary up to the extent of $2,000.00 (Two Thousand Dollars).” These are the provisions upon which the appellants rely. ¹² The wife’s will gave a life estate in certain real property to an uncle of hers, after which the remainder was to fall into the residue. She also bequeathed her household furniture and effects and her jewelry and a pecuniary bequest of $5,000 to a member or members of her family, and made other pecuniary bequests to other persons, which aggregated $3,700.

In May, 1953, James H. Gaither shot and killed first his wife and then himself. Numerous questions affecting the estates of the decedents arose from these unhappy events, and were passed upon by the Chancellor. He held, inter alia, that the personal property owned separately by James H. Gaither and the proceeds of insurance on his life which would have been payable to Mrs. Gaither if she had survived him, but which were payable to his estate if she did not, were to be distributed in accordance with the will of James H. Gaither. The only appeal from the Chancellor’s comprehensive decree is from that portion of it which construed the will of James H. Gaither as limiting the amounts payable to the appellants to an aggregate of $3,000 in the case of his mother and of $2,000 in the case of his sister.

No attack is made upon the Chancellor’s finding that the mother and daughter were in financial need or upon his decree based upon