Is a charitable remainder still valid when the beneficiary of a pet trust predeceases its owner? This issue was at the center in the recent case In re Estate of Jablonski decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
Theresa Jablonski executed a will leaving her entire estate to a testamentary pet trust. The beneficiary was her 15-year-old cocker spaniel, Licorice, and any other pets she may have at the time of her death. The trust funds were to be used for the “health, maintenance, and appearance of the trust beneficiaries.”1 After the last pet’s death, the remainder would go to a charity designated by the trustee. Licorice died two years before Jablonski, and she had no other pets at the time of her death. Jablonski heirs by intestacy were her nieces and nephews, one of whom was named personal representative. The personal representative argued the estate should flow to a designated charity. The other heirs objected, arguing the charitable remainder had lapsed, since Licorice predeceased Jablonski. The lower court, the Fiduciary Litigation Session (FLS), granted summary judgment in favor of the personal representative, stating that the charitable remainder provision was still valid under the doctrine of acceleration of remainders.
The SJC disagreed with the lower court, decided that there was an issue of fact, reversed the entry of summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the FLS. The SJC began by examining the plain language of the pet trust statute, which states that “the trust shall terminate upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal."2 Because Licorice died before Jablonski and no additional pets survived her, the trust terminated before Jablonski's death. In addition, because the trust was a testamentary trust, it would not be funded until after Jablonski's death. Therefore, when the trust terminated, there were no funds within the trust’s control. As a result, the testamentary pet trust lapsed and the legacy passed to the residue.
However, because the residue was also left to the failed testamentary pet trust, the disposition remained ambiguous. The ambiguity arose because “the decedent’s will does not demonstrate a clear intent that the charitable remainder be awarded to the yet-to-be-named charity in the event Licorice were to predecease the decedent.”3 A further complication was that no specific charity was named. This fact distinguishes Jablonski from similar pet trust and charitable remainder cases from other jurisdictions, where a charity was explicitly designated. While the lack of a named charity does not automatically invalidate a charitable remainder, it “at least creates ambiguity whether the decedent wanted the remainder to go to charity or, alternatively, her primary concern was the well-being of Licorice following her death.”4 The SJC stressed, “although the interpretation of a will begins with the four corners of the instrument, extrinsic evidence may be necessary to resolve ambiguities that arise in a will.”5 Given that the language of the will was unclear about Jablonski's intent regarding the charitable remainder, if Licorice predeceased her, there is a need for extrinsic evidence.
The SJC concluded that if, after examining extrinsic evidence, “there exists no clear intent that the charitable remainder was to be accelerated on Licorice's failure to survive the decedent,”6 both the testamentary pet trust and the residual provision fail because the residue was left to the lapsed trust. If the pet trust and the residual provision lapse, the estate will pass through intestacy. The case was remanded for further proceedings to clarify Jablonski's intent.
This opinion highlights the necessity of encapsulating as many scenarios as possible within the four corners of an instrument. It also emphasizes the importance of clarifying legacies that do not include descendants. The child-free movement has been growing in recent years; therefore, the use of pet trusts, charitable remainders and charitable trusts likely will increase in the near future.
Kathryn M. Barry is an attorney focusing on probate, estate administration and estate planning. She is the legislative liaison for the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Probate Law Section Council. She received her J.D. from New England Law Boston and her LLM from Boston University School of Law.
1. In re Estate of Jablonski, SJC-13397, 3 (Mass. Aug. 24, 2023).
2. In re Estate of Jablonski, SJC-13397, 8 (Mass. Aug. 24, 2023).
3. Id. at 12.
4. Id.
5. In re Estate of Jablonski, SJC-13397, 13 (Mass. Aug. 24, 2023)
6. Id. at 15