DeLone Estate
Opinion of the Court
Decedent died on September 17,1960, and was survived by her husband, Joseph M. DeLone (who also died on December 23, 1962) and seven children. In paragraph Fourth of her will, she created a life estate in her residuary estate for her husband, and then provided:
“(b) Upon the death of my said husband, or upon my death if he should predecease me, [my trustee shall] pay over and distribute the then remaining balance of principal of my residuary estate, absolutely and in equal shares, to such of my children as are then living and, per stirpes, to the then living issue of such of my children who may then be deceased; provided, however, that if my daughter, Marie Louise DeLone, is then living, her share of principal, which she would otherwise be entitled to receive outright in accordance with the foregoing provision, shall be paid over and distributed to the then Trustees under a certain Declaration of Trust heretofore made by my son, Francis X. DeLone and my daughter, Marguerite Munday. . . .”
Letters testamentary on the estate of her deceased husband, Joseph M. DeLone, were granted by the Register of Wills of this county on January 9, 1953, to Joseph M. DeLone, Jr. and E. Coughlin DeLone, executors of said will named.
By decree entered on June 5, 1953, J. Brooke Aker, Esq., was appointed guardian ad litem for Marie Louise DeLone, a daughter of testatrix.
The problem presently before the court arises from the fact that the “Declaration of Trust” referred to
On January 3, 1955, in a writing, all of decedent’s children agreed that her son, Francis X. DeLone, should become substituted custodian in place of Janet Malley, who desired to resign. On February 15, 1955, the said Francis X. DeLone executed an agreement whereby he accepted all of the responsibilities created by the original writing dated August 12, 1948, and agreed to serve thereunder. The arrangement remains in existence to the present time, functions well, and now has a principal value of about $47,000, exclusive of any distribution from this estate.
By the petition for adjudication, the court is requested to award the one-seventh share of this estate attributable to the interest of Marie Louise DeLone,
Decedent’s will contains a latent ambiguity in its reference to a declaration of trust. This may always be explained by extrinsic evidence: Gerety Estate, 354 Pa. 14. The court is satisfied from the information furnished by counsel that the instrument referred to is the declaration of ownership and custodianship dated August 12, 1948, and therefore finds that the intent of testatrix was to award the share of Marie Louise DeLone to the current “custodians” under that declaration.
Regardless of the linguistic accuracy of “custodianship,” however, there is no fiduciary relationship in Pennsylvania so characterized, at least which would be applicable here. However, no particular form or words are necessary to create a trust, if the necessary intention is manifested: Schuldt v. Reading Trust Company, 270 Pa. 360; Thornton v. Koch, 317 Pa. 400. Whatever reveals the intention of a party that the property of which he is the legal owner shall belong to another beneficially, is sufficient: Smith’s Estate, 144 Pa. 428. What is here termed a declaration of ownership and
The entire balance of principal and income accrued since December 23, 1962, is awarded as follows: 1/7 share each to Janet Malley, Marguerite Munday, Kathleen Freed, Joseph M. DeLone, Jr., E. Coghlin DeLone and Francis X. DeLone; and 1/7 share to Francis X. DeLone and Marguerite Munday, trustees for Marie Louise DeLone.
And now, November 29, 1963, this adjudication is confirmed nisi.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.