cy pres doctrine in Missouri

12 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacquesgreen mo · 1971 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1974–2004 2 sentences 2004First Nat’l Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, 470 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo.1971). 1976Therefore, although literal compliance with the terms of the gift became impossible upon the abolition of the city library, the nonexistence of the city library as a legal entity at the time of testatrix’ death did not effect a lapse or cause a failure of the devise, because under the cy pres doctrine, First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, supra, 470 S.W.2d l.c. 561[6], the circuit court properly designated the county library district (which provides library facilities and services for the benefit of the public in the City of Warren-ton), as the beneficiary of the trust.	2	3
Thatcher v. St. Louisgreen · 1934 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1956–1974 2 sentences 1974Thatcher v. Lewis, 335 Mo. 1130 , 76 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1934); First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, 470 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo.1971); Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 361 Mo. 857 , 237 S.W.2d 143 (1951); Reed v. Eagleton, 384 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.1964). 1971Charitable trusts, of which the bequest to the Board of Trustees of the University of Kansas City for the purposes set forth in the will is clearly one, “are the favorites of equity,” Burrier v. Jones, Mo., 92 S.W.2d 885 , and although no general rule can be enunciated which is applicable to every case, the cy pres doctrine may be applied “to permit the main purpose of the donor of a charitable trust to be carried out as nearly as possible where it cannot be done to the letter,” Thatcher v. Lewis, supra, 76 S.W.2d at p. 682 , and the courts will strive to uphold the validity of a charitable tr	1	3
Levings v. Danforthgreen moctapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Levings v. *23 Danforth, 512 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Mo.App.1974).	1	1
Gilman v. Burnettgreen me · 1917 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978It should either be applied in such a way as to effectuate the general charitable intent of the testatrix, if such intent can be found, by invoking the doctrine of cy pres, or it should be held to belong to the heirs at law on the ground of a lapsed devise.” Gilman v. Burnett, 116 Me. 382 , 102 A. 108, 109 (1917). 1978It should either be applied in such a way as to effectuate the general charitable intent of the testatrix, if such intent can be found, by invoking the doctrine of cy pres, or it should be held to belong to the heirs at law on the ground of a lapsed devise.” Gilman v. Burnett, 116 Me. 382 , 102 A. 108, 109 (1917).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Obermeyer v. Bank of America, N.A. green mo · 2004 2 sentences 2014The issue was whether the trust could be modified pursuant to the cy pres doctrine, a doctrine “based on the concerns of equity to protect and preserve charitable bequests.” Id. at 22-23 . 2014Id. at 23 .	2	2009–2014
Burrier v. Jones green · 1936 2 sentences 2004Missouri courts have previously applied the cy pres doctrine only to charitable trusts; this Court has held that “absent the creation of a trust, there is no room for the application of the doctrine of cy pres.” Burner, 92 S.W.2d at 889 . 2004Missouri courts have previously applied the cy pres doctrine only to charitable trusts; this Court has held that “absent the creation of a trust, there is no room for the application of the doctrine of cy pres.” Burner, 92 S.W.2d at 889 .	2	1971–2004
Ramsey v. City of Brookfield green mo · 1951 2 sentences 1974Thatcher v. Lewis, 335 Mo. 1130 , 76 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1934); First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, 470 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo.1971); Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 361 Mo. 857 , 237 S.W.2d 143 (1951); Reed v. Eagleton, 384 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.1964). 1974Thatcher v. Lewis, 335 Mo. 1130 , 76 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1934); First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, 470 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo.1971); Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 361 Mo. 857 , 237 S.W.2d 143 (1951); Reed v. Eagleton, 384 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.1964).	2	1956–1974
Buchholz Mortuaries, Inc. v. Director of Revenue green mo · 2003 2 sentences 2005We only found one Missouri case that even mentioned using the cy pres doctrine in this context, and this was in a footnote to a concurring opinion. 2 Buchholz Mortuaries, Inc., v. Dir. of Revenue, 113 S.W.3d 192 , 196 n. 1 (Mo. banc 2003) (Wolff, J., concurring). 2005Id.	1	2005–2005
cluster 779482 green ca8 · 2002 2 sentences 2005The fourth option is to apply the cy pres doctrine, which comes from a Norman French expression, cy pres com-me possible, which means “as near as possible.” Airline Ticket Comm’n, 307 F.3d at 682 . 2005When this doctrine is used to distribute unclaimed funds in the class action context, “the unclaimed funds should be distributed for a purpose as near as possible to the legitimate objectives underlying the lawsuit, the interests of class members, and the interests of those similarly situated.” Id.	1	2005–2005
Comfort v. Higgins green mo · 1978 1 sentence 2004Comfort, 576 S.W.2d at 336 , holds that “unless and until it is determined that a trust has failed, the question of general or specific charitable intent is irrelevant.” If the settlor’s intent was specific, the cy pres doctrine cannot be applied.	1	2004–2004
Reed v. Eagleton green mo · 1964 2 sentences 1974Thatcher v. Lewis, 335 Mo. 1130 , 76 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1934); First National Bank of Kansas City v. Jacques, 470 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo.1971); Ramsey v. City of Brookfield, 361 Mo. 857 , 237 S.W.2d 143 (1951); Reed v. Eagleton, 384 S.W.2d 578 (Mo.1964). 1974Reed v. Eagleton, supra. Under such circumstances, the court below, as a court of equity, has the power (and, indeed, the duty) to apply the cy pres doctrine and seek to determine “as nearly as may be” the general purpose and intent of the settlor and adopt a plan or “scheme” to carry such general intent into fruition and thus prevent a failure of the charitable trust.	1	1974–1974
Curators of the University of Missouri v. University of Kansas City neutral mo · 1969 2 sentences 1970Drury claims that any use of The Home’s funds under the affiliation agreement would have to be under the cy pres doctrine, because it has become impossible or impractical to use all of its funds in the present operation, but that the cy pres rule cannot be applied under Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Univ. of Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 442 S.W.2d 66, 72 , because of the gift-over provision in the codicil. 1970Drury claims that any use of The Home’s funds under the affiliation agreement would have to be under the cy pres doctrine, because it has become impossible or impractical to use all of its funds in the present operation, but that the cy pres rule cannot be applied under Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Univ. of Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 442 S.W.2d 66, 72 , because of the gift-over provision in the codicil.	1	1970–1970
Chater v. Carter green · 1915 2 sentences 1969Considering all the surrounding circumstances shown we cannot find any reasonable basis for the construction claimed by Bethesda and affirm the ruling in the trial court’s decree finding that there was “no direction for the periodic payment to * * * Bethesda * * * of the income in excess of the monthly payments directed to be made to the annuitants.” For the unknown heirs, it is claimed the testatrix by her Will did not dispose of the excess income of the trust over the amounts required for expenses and for payment of the life annuities, citing Chater v. Carter, 238 U.S. 572, 584 , 35 S.Ct. 85 1969Considering all the surrounding circumstances shown we cannot find any reasonable basis for the construction claimed by Bethesda and affirm the ruling in the trial court’s decree finding that there was “no direction for the periodic payment to * * * Bethesda * * * of the income in excess of the monthly payments directed to be made to the annuitants.” For the unknown heirs, it is claimed the testatrix by her Will did not dispose of the excess income of the trust over the amounts required for expenses and for payment of the life annuities, citing Chater v. Carter, 238 U.S. 572, 584 , 35 S.Ct. 85	1	1969–1969
Bragg v. Litchfield green mass · 1912 1 sentence 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 .	1	1956–1956
Holmes v. Welch green mass · 1943 2 sentences 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 . 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 .	1	1956–1956
Security Trust Co. v. Willett neutral · 1953 1 sentence 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 .	1	1956–1956
Security Trust Co. v. Willett green delch · 1953 1 sentence 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 .	1	1956–1956
Muldoon v. Board of Review neutral ill · 1912 1 sentence 1956Cited in support of this rule are Holmes v. Welch, 314 Mass. 106 , 49 N.E.2d 461 , 157 A.L.R. 896 ; Bragg v. Litchfield, 212 Mass. 148 , 98 N.E. 673 ; Security Trust Co. v. Willett, 33 Del.Ch. 544 , 97 A.2d 112 .	1	1956–1956
Maguire v. City of Macomb green ill · 1920 2 sentences 1951In Maguire v. City of Macomb, 293 Ill. 441 , 127 NE 682 , there was an express provision for failure of the gift in the event the city failed to improve the land as a public park “within a reasonable time.” Our' ruling is that this trust has not failed and is one to which the cy pres doctrine may be applied in a future appropriate action. 1951In Maguire v. City of Macomb, 293 Ill. 441 , 127 NE 682 , there was an express provision for failure of the gift in the event the city failed to improve the land as a public park “within a reasonable time.” Our' ruling is that this trust has not failed and is one to which the cy pres doctrine may be applied in a future appropriate action.	1	1951–1951

Where else courts name it

NY 103 (1903–2025) PA 61 (1923–2025) CA 33 (1901–2010) IL 28 (1905–2012) NJ 23 (1910–2024) MA 22 (1904–2025) TX 18 (1927–2025) CT 17 (1893–2023) OH 16 (1916–2025) MO 12 (1951–2014) IA 11 (1903–2019) KY 11 (1923–2010) WI 10 (1888–2019) ME 10 (1917–2025) MI 8 (1927–1986) AL 7 (1907–2006) KS 7 (1941–1992) GA 7 (1964–2009) OR 7 (1927–1990) LA 6 (1956–2018) VA 6 (1946–2023) MD 6 (1912–2002) AR 6 (1949–2017) RI 6 (1929–2007) NE 5 (1908–2003) IN 5 (1913–2005) NC 5 (1972–2003) FL 5 (1930–2011) DE 5 (1925–1994) CO 5 (1993–2026) UT 4 (1982–2013) TN 4 (2006–2011) MN 4 (1962–2004) AZ 4 (1947–1992) HI 3 (1970–2006) DC 3 (1977–1990) MS 3 (1987–2009) WV 3 (1941–1993) SC 3 (1961–2007) WA 3 (1948–2011) ND 2 (1986–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check