 | Board of Visitors minutes May 13, 1942 |  |
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Visitors held in the Office of the
President at the University at 10:30 A.M., present were: R. Gray Williams, Lewis C. Williams and Hollis
Rinehart of the Committee, and Christopher B. Garnett and Aubrey G. Weaver.
W. Allan Perkins, one of the Executors of William J. Rucker, deceased, appeared before the
meeting and read the following statement -
The Will of Mr. Rucker's mother, who, at the time of her death in 1921, was Mrs. Lucy James Dun,
was admitted to probate in the Orphans Court of Baltimore County, Maryland, on the 31st of August, 1921.
After making a number of specific and pecuniary bequests, Mrs. Dun. gives all the rest and
residue of her estate to Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore, upon the following trusts -
(1) To hold and invest the principal of said fund paying all the income therefrom to her son,
William James Rucker during his lifetime;
(2) Upon the death of the said William James Rucker the Trustees shall set apart one-third of
the trust estate and shall pay the net income thereof to Mr. Rucker's widow during her life or widowhood,
the remaining two-thirds to be held and the income paid to any child or children surviving him:
(3) Should the said William J. Rucker die without children or descendants, then this two-thirds
is upon his death to pass to the persons who may be- "the next of kin of my said son according to the laws
of Maryland at the time of his death."
(4) If he leaves child or children surviving, then upon the death or remarriage of the widow the
one-third set apart for her shall pass to such child or children;
(5) But if he dies without children then the one-third set aside for the widow shall, upon her
death or remarriage, pass to - "the persons who would be the next of kin of my said son according to the
laws of Maryland if he were living at the time of the death or remarriage of his widow."
At the time of Mr. Rucker's death, December 19, 1941, the principal of the trust estate held
by Safe Deposit and Trust Company of Baltimore under Mrs. Dun's will amounted to, in round numbers,
$2,400,000,000.
Mr. Rucker died without child or children surviving, and at the time of his death was a widower.
Under the provisions of Mrs. Dun's will, the trust created thereby terminated upon Mr. Rucker's
death, and the duty of distributing the trust fund has now devolved upon the Trustee.
The Trustee is advised by its Counsel, Messrs. Venable, Baetjer & Howard, of Baltimore, that
in their opinion the limitation over with reference to the one-third of the estate which was to be set
apart for the benefit of the widow is probably void for remoteness. To make an executory limitation such
as this valid the event on which it is to take effect must of necessity happen, if at all, within the duration
of a life or lives in being at the time of the creation of the estate and twenty-one years and ten months
thereafter. It is not enough that it possibly may or even probably will happen within that period. Here
the Trustee was to hold the wholeof the estate during Mr. Rucker's lifetime and then, upon his death, for the
natural life or widowhood of any wife who might survive him and at the death of the wife this one-third was
to pass either to Mr. Rucker's children or in default of children to his next of kin according to the laws
of Maryland.
As stated above, Mrs. Dun died August, 1921. Mr. Rucker did not die until December, 1941, twenty
years later. It was therefore entirely possible that he might have married a woman who was not born at the
time of his mother's death and who might have survived Mr. Rucker for more than twenty-one years and ten
months, at the expiration of which time the executory limitation to the children of Mr. Rucker or to his
next of kin would have to take effect, if at all, which period would be too remote according to the rule
above stated.
If this provision of Mrs. Dum's will with reference to one-third of her estate is void as
being contrary to the rule against perpetuities, then it follows that she was intestate as to this one-third
or some $800,000.00. If she was intestate as to any part of her estate such part would pass to William J.
Rucker, her only child and heir at law. This brings us to a consideration of Mr. Rucker's will which was
admitted to probate in the Corporation Court of Charlottesville on the 26th of December, 1941.
Paragraph (3) of the Fifth Article of this will reads as follows:
"(3) By a Trust Agreement of even date with this will, I have disposed of all of my intangible
personal property, both during the remainder of my lifetime and after my death. Said Trust
Agreement does not include within its terms my real estate, my tangible personal property, or
any money I may have in my possession at the time of my death. This will is, therefore, specifically
designed to provide for the distribution of said real estate, tangible personal property,
and money."
After disposing of his real estate and tangible personal property, Mr. Rucker gives- "All the
rest and residue of my estate, of every kind and description, real, personal and mixed and wherever situated,
in equal parts, to St. Luke's Hospital, of St. Louis, Missouri, Martha Jefferson Hospital and Sanatorium,
Incorporated, of Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia,
for the general use of its hospital.
It is apparent from reading Mrs. Dun's will that she intended that all of her property should
ultimately devolve upon her son's children, or if he left no children then to those persons who would be
his next of kin under the laws of Maryland. But if, by reason of the application of the technical rule
against perpetuities referred to above, she is intestate as to a part of her estate and such part would
have passed by reason of this intestacy to the said William J. Rucker as her only heir at law, then it
would seem that this same portion of Mrs. Dun's estate would pass under the residuary clause of Mr. Rucker's
will above referred to in three equal parts to the institutions named above, the share of the University
of Virginia therein being one-third of approximately $800,000.00.
Messrs. Venable, Baetjer & Howard have been instructed by Safe Deposit and Trust Company,
Trustee under Mrs. Dun's will, to institute a proceeding in the Orphans Court of Baltimore, asking this Court
to guide the Trustee in the distribution of this trust fund and directing said Trustee to pay the one-third
in question either to Mr. Rucker's next of kin under the laws of Maryland or to his Executors. All parties
institutions named above will be materially affected by any decision reached in this proceeding and
on this account unless the institutions feel that they should waive any rights that they may have
as residuary legatees under Mr. Rucker's will it would seem that each of these institutions should
be represented by Counsel in this proceeding in the Orphans Court of Baltimore.
There is no doubt of the fact that Mrs. Dun intended the whole of her estate ultimately
to pass to Mr. Rucker's children, or to his next of kin, and the diversion of this large amount from
her estate will result, as stated above, from the application of a technical rule of law.
In view of this fact each of the institutions will be asked whether it desires to waive
any rights it may have.
As two of the institutions are purely charitable organizations and the third educational
and charitable, it is of course probable that the governing bodies of the institutions will feel
that they have no power or authority to waive any legal rights, however technical these rights may be.
There is another phase of this situation which must be given careful consideration. Referring
back to Paragraph (3) of the Fifth Article of Mr. Rucker's will quoted on Page 377 of this
statement it will be seen that Mr. Rucker in that paragraph states that - "this will is specifically
designed to provide for the distribution of real estate, tangible personal property, and money".
The residuary clause also quoted above follows almost immediately after Paragraph (3). It is
entirely possible that this residuary clause is broad enough to dispose of the $800,000.00 above
referred to if the Baltimore Court should hold that Mrs. Dun was intestate as to that amount. On
the other hand it is possible that some of Mr. Rucker's next of kin, of whom there are twenty-one,
as shown by List of Heirs filed by the Executors, might claim that due to the phraseology of Paragraph 3
of the Fifth Article of Mr. Rucker's will he was actually intestate as to this sum, in which ease,
of course, this fund would pass to the next of kin and not to the residuary legatees.
If the Baltimore Court should hold that the Trustee under Mrs. Dun's will must turn this
$800,000.00 over to Mr. Rucker's Executors, it is highly probable that the Executors will not be
willing to take the responsibility of distributing this amount without the guidance of the Corporation
Court of Charlottesville, given them in a proceeding to which all the next of kin and the three
institutions are made parties.
I am advised that if the Board of St. Luke's Hospital feels that it has no right to make
the waiver above referred to that its interests will be represented by Mr. Alvan J. Goodbar, of
St. Louis, as Counsel; that if Martha Jefferson Hospital and Sanatorium does not feel justified in
executing such waiver it will probably be represented by Messrs. H. W. Walsh and John S. Graves,
of the Charlottesville Bar.
May I request, therefore, that this Committee consider this whole situation as presented
in the foregoing statement and advise Mr. George Pausch and me, as Executors of Mr. Rucker's estate
upon the following points -
(1) Whether the University of Virginia wishes to waive any rights it may have in Mrs. Dun's
estate by reason of possible intestacy as to a part thereof:
(2) If you feel that you should be represented by Counsel in the proceeding or proceedings
above referred to, will you please make proper provision for selection of counsel as soon as may
be convenient, since I, as one of the Executors of Mr. Rucker's estate, will be disqualified to act
in this matter as Attorney for the University of Virginia.
After the foregoing statement was read to the meeting by Mr. Perkins, the whole situation
was discussed in detail and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED, since the University of Virginia is a public institution governed, controlled
and wholly owned by the State of Virginia, it is the opinion of this Committee that neither
the Board of Visitors of the University nor this Executive Committee has any power or authority
to waive any rights, legal or equitable, which this University may have in property of any kind.
And,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that since by specific provision of law the Board of Visitors of
the University and this Committee are charged with the care and preservation of all property
belonging to the University we feel that the interests of this institution should be
represented in the proceeding in the Orphans Court of Baltimore, above referred to, and in
any proceeding that may be instituted in the Corporation Court of Charlottesville for the
construction of Mr. Rucker's will, and to this end a Committee composed of the Rector, the
President, Messrs. Lewis C. Williams, Christopher B. Garnett and Aubrey G. Weaver, is hereby
appointed, whose duty it shall be to confer with the Attorney General upon the subject
of such representation and if it turns out to be impracticable for the Attorney General to
render the service necessary, said Committee is hereby empowered, upon the written recommendation
of the Attorney General, to employ such special counsel as may be deemed necessary and proper,
and this Committee is further empowered to enter into such contract or contracts for legal
services in this connection as, in the opinion of this Committee, may be wise; such contract
or contracts to be executed on behalf of the Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, by the Rector or by the President. (See Paragraph (c) of Section 374a of the Code).
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT "U.S.A. AND U.VA. #6"
RESOLVED, by the Board of Visitors of the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
that the President be and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute Memorandum of Agreement
or Contract between the United States of America and the University of Virginia, in the amount
of $43,500, to be paid by the United States of America for research in the Department of Physics,
under direction of Dr. Jesse W. Beams, "U.S.A. and U.Va. No. 6."
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that E. I. Carruthers, Secretary of this Board, be and he is hereby
authorized and directed to attest the signature, affix the seal, and certify that this Resolution
was passed by authority of the Governing Board of this University, and is within the scope of
its corporate powers, and is a modification of the Agreement authorized at the meeting of this
Board held on March 20, 1942.
The meeting then adjourned.
CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY
| Board of Visitors minutes May 13, 1942 | |