the same would have been distributable if such deceased settlor had been the owner thereof at the time of his or her death and had died intestate.'
The Court in that case held that the children or next of kin of the settlors, had a vested remainder subject to divestment by last will and testament which could not, however, be divested by deed or assignment of the settlor. The Court went on to say that if the settlor thought he could transfer or assign that which he thought he possessed, which is a reversion, the deed would be ineffectual as against the children, for their interest could only be cut off by a will.
The construction of the trust which the Court gave in the above case was based primarily, and rightly so, upon the intention of the grantors or settlors. This Court believes that in ascertaining the intent of the settlor in the present case from the trust instrument itself, it was his intention to create a vested reversion in himself, and only a contingent interest in his 'heirs at law, executors or administrators.' The interest which the latter group would take, if any, is basically contingent upon the death of the settlor. Based upon all of the foregoing, this Court believes that the interest of the defendant in the trust indenture of July 3, 1947 is a present, attachable interest.
5. Statute of limitations.
Title 12, Sec. 203, District of Columbia Code, provides as follows:
'Every action upon a judgment or decree rendered in any state or territory of the United States or in any foreign country shall be barred if by the laws of such state, territory, or foreign country such action would there be barred and the judgment or decree be incapable of being otherwise enforced there.'
As the judgment in this case has been determined to be a final judgment, the Court must look to the law of the jurisdiction rendering the judgment. In other words, the law of Michigan will determine whether any or all of this claim is now barred.
Volume 20, Michigan Statutes Annotated, Sec. 27.605 (Supp.) contains the following:
'All actions in any of the courts of this state shall be commenced within 6 years next after the causes of action shall accrue, and not afterward, except as hereinafter specified; provided, however,
'1. That actions founded upon judgments or decrees rendered in any court of record of the United States, or of this state, or of some other of the United States, * * * may be brought at any time within 10 years from the time of the rendition of such judgment, * * *' Comp.Laws 1948, § 609.13.
The Michigan judgment in this case was rendered on February 14, 1950. Payments by the defendant have not been made since October, 1953 at which time this cause of action accrued. Therefore, in an action for debt, since under the Michigan law the action may be commenced within 6 years from the date the action accrues, it is plainly seen that the plaintiff here is not barred by the statute of limitations. Further, the action was commenced within the ten years since the judgment was rendered in Michigan. Therefore, since this suit would not be barred under Michigan law, it is not barred here. Miller v. Miller, 74 App.D.C. 216, 122 F.2d 209.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is hereby granted, and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby denied.
Counsel will present appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.