Legal Opinion

Inderieden v. Downs

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 21, 2005PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs are the trustee and settlors of the Hugh M. and Ruth S. Downs Irrevocable Trust. They commenced this action in the Probate and Family Court seeking to reform the trust in order to permit the trustee to divide the trust into two or more subtrusts, for the purpose of minimizing the consequences of the generation skipping transfer tax.4 It would be a relatively innocuous change — a type we have allowed on many occasions in the past. It would “neither change[] the identity of any beneficiary nor alter[] any beneficial interest.” BankBoston v. Marlow, 428 Mass. 283, 286 (1998). It…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. BankBoston v. MarlowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
  2. First Agricultural Bank v. CoxeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
  3. Fleet National Bank v. MackeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  4. Riley v. RileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  5. Fleet National Bank v. MarquisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of LuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
  2. Gilpatric v. CabourMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API