p. 207In the Matter of the Accounting of the United States Trust Company of New York, as Trustee of the Trust Created by Alexander K. Nicol, Respondent. Joseph N. Taylor et al., Appellants; Alexandra Bowdoin et al., Infants, by W. Scott Long, Their Guardian ad Litem, Respondents.decided February 28, 1967.
p. 209Standish F. Medina for Joseph N. Taylor and others, appellants.
I. In 1935 the New Jersey “ Stranger to the Adoption ” rule established a presumption that children adopted by the settlor were intended to be included by the term “ issue ”. (Ahlemeyer v. Miller, 102 N. J. L. 54 , 103 N. J. L. 617 ; Dulfon v. Keasbey, 111 N. J. Eq. 223 ; Matter of McEwan, 128 N. J. Eq. 140 ; Matter of Wehrhane, 23 N. J. 205 ; Matter of Coe, 42 N. J. 485 .) II. Nothing in this record will support a finding that this trust was created by the father, A. R. Nicol, or a ruling that this trust should be construed as if it had been created by him. III. Taking the record as a whole, nothing on the face of this trust indenture, or in the circumstances under which it was executed, or facts and declarations coming into existence many years after the creation of the trust will support a finding that either the father or the son intended to exclude adopted children. (Matter of Nicol, 3 Misc 2d 898 ; Pimpinello v. Swift & Co., 253 N. Y. 159 .) IV. The adoptions under decrees of the California court having jurisdiction of the persons of the parties and of the subject matter of the proceedings must be given full faith and credit. (Dulfon v. Keasbey, 111 N. J. Eq. 223 ; Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden, 15 N Y 2d 9 ; Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N Y 2d 64 .)Italo H. Ablondi, as guardian ad litem for Paul N. Taylor and others, infants, appellants.
I. Nothing in the text of the trust indenture, in the circumstances of its execution, or in
p. 210various facts and circumstanees of more recent origin which appear in the record, will support a finding that the trust was created by the settlor’s father or that the trust indenture should be construed as if it has been so created. (Pimpinello v. Swift & Co., 253 N. Y. 159 , Matter of Nicol, 3 Misc 2d 898 ; Matter of Nicol, 39 Misc 2d 674 , 24 A D 2d 555 , 16 N Y 2d 486 .) II. Nothing in the record will support a finding that the settlor intended to exclude adopted children and 'their respective issue or that the New Jersey “ Stranger to the Adoption ” rule, which establishes a presumption that adopted children of the settlor are “ issue ”, should be applied in such a manner as to exclude them. (Dulfon v. Keasbey, 111 N. J. Eq. 223 ; Matter of Book, 90 N. J. Eq. 549 ; Matter of McEwan, 128 N. J. Eq. 140 ; Commercial Trust Co. of N. J. v. Adelung, 136 N. J. Eq. 37 , 137 N. J. Eq. 541 ; Matter of Fisler, 133 N. J. Eq. 421 ; Matter of Wehrhane, 23 N. J. 205 ; Matter of Coe, 42 N. J. 485 .) III. California decrees of adoption, rendered by courts having, jurisdiction over the parties thereto and the subject matter thereof, will be given full faith and credit in New Jersey and must be given full faith and credit in this proceeding. (Zanzonico v. Neeld, 17 N. J. 490 ; Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N Y 2d 64 ; Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden, 15 N Y 2d 9 ; Matter of Nicol, 3 Misc 2d 898 .)Richard Steel for Frances M. Nicol, executrix, appellant.
I. Settlor having complied with all requirements of the deed of trust, $5,000 became payable to this appellant on November II, 1961. (Matter of Woollard, 295 N. Y. 390 ; Matter of Nathan, 17 Misc 2d 822 ; Matter of Solinger, 4 Misc 2d 79 ; New Jersey Tit. Guar. & Trust Co. v. Dailey, 123 N. J. Eq. 205 ; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Woolf, 138 N. J. Eq. 450 ; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Deyerberg, 101 N. J. Eq. 90 ; Cannon v. Farmers’ Mut. Fire Assn., 58 N. J. Eq. 102 ; Katzman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 309 N. Y. 197 .) II. Settlor intended by the use of the word “issue” to include his adopted children. (Matter of Nicol, 3 Misc 2d 898 ; Matter of Nicol, 39 Misc 2d 674 , 24 A D 2d 555 ; Gluckman v. Roberson, 116 N. J. Eq. 531 ; Matter of Upjohn, 304 N. Y. 366 ; Matter of McEwan, 128 N. J. Eq. 140 ; Matter of Coe, 42 N. J. 485 ; Matter of Park, 15 N Y 2d 413 ; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Helme,
p. 211121 N. J. Eq. 406 .) III. Appellant is entitled to one third of the income from the trust.W. Scott Long, as guardian ad litem for Alexandra Bowdoin and others, infants, respondents.
I. No party to the trust indenture intended adopted adults to take as “ issue ”. (Matter of Nicol, 3 Misc 2d 898 ; Matter of Nicol, 39 Misc 2d 674 , 24 A D 2d 555 , 16 N Y 2d 486 .) II. The term “issue” under New J ersey law does not include adopted adults. (Matter of Fisler, 133 N. J. Eq. 421 ; Matter of McEwan, 128 N. J. Eq. 140 ; Commercial Trust Co. of N. J. v. Adelung, 136 N. J. Eq. 37 , 137 N. J. Eq. 541 ; Matter of Coe, 42 N. J. 485 .) III. To permit a gift to the adopted adults herein as “issue” would violate New Jersey public policy. (Zanzonico v. Neeld, 17 N. J, 490 ; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U. S. 611 .) IV. The spendthrift provision of the trust instrument prevents the prospective assignment by Alexander Kenneth Nicol of the $5,000 to his widow.The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to the extent that those paragraphs which declared that the terms “ issue ” and “ surviving issue ” used in the trust indenture did not include the adopted children or their issue and which declared the rights of the widow and the surviving issue of the settlor’s brother and sisters under the trust indenture are hereby reversed. Those paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, which declared that the adopted children and their issue were “ issue ” of the settlor, that such issue were to take per stirpes, and otherwise declared the rights of the widow and such issue under the terms of the trust indenture are hereby reinstated. As so modified, the order is affirmed.
The stranger to the adoption rule creates a presumption that the settlor of the trust intended to include his adopted children in the term issue (Matter of Wehrhane, 23 N. J. 205 [Sup. Ct., 1957]). Sufficient evidence has not been presented by the respondents to overcome this presumption.
The terms of the trust indenture evidence the settlor’s intent that the draw down provision was for Ms sole benefit. Consequently, it was necessary for him to survive the payment dates before any rights to the $5,000 became vested in him. Therefore, his widow is not entitled to recover the $5,000.
p. 212Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis, Burke, Bergan and Keating concur; Judge Breitel taking no part.
Order modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the principal of the trust.