Wills and trusts Cy prs doctrine Charitable trusts.

Byline: R.I. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a cy prs petition has been filed as to four charitable trusts, that petition should be allowed in part, as the settlors' intent cannot be carried out as originally constituted regarding three of the trusts.

" So long as the settlor 'manifested a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, the trust will not fail but the court will direct the application of the property to some charitable purpose which falls within the general charitable intention of the settlor.' ... In other words, the Court may modify the terms of the trust so that it serves 'some new purpose, as nearly like to the old as possible.' This practice is known as the 'cy prs doctrine,' stemming from the Norman French phrase 'cy prs comme possible,' meaning 'as near as possible' or 'as near as may be.' ... The cy prs doctrine has since been codified in the Rhode Island General Laws. G.L. 1956 18-4-1.

"Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. (Trustee) filed the instant Verified Miscellaneous Petition for Cy Prs as to four charitable trusts the William F. Sayles Endowment Fund, under declaration of trust dated May 24, 1910 (the Sayles Trust), the E. Russell Richardson Trust, under declaration of trust by will dated October 3, 1930 (the Richardson Trust), the John F. Preston Charitable Trust, under declaration of trust dated January 30, 1941 and Modification of Trust Indenture dated June 2, 1961 (the Preston Trust), and the Harold W. Wood and Gertrude B. Wood Trust, under declaration of trust dated December 17, 1969 as amended (the Wood Trust) (collectively, the Subject Trusts) all inuring to the benefit of The Memorial Hospital d/b/a The Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island (MHRI).

"For reasons stated herein, MHRI is no longer a viable beneficiary. Thus, the settlors' intent cannot be carried out as originally constituted.

"The Court concludes that the Sayles Trust has not failed under 18-4-1 because it is not impossible to fulfill the settlor's intent. Because the land and buildings thereupon still exist, MHRI still accrues expenses and must continue to be maintained. Thus, the settlor's intent to pay those expenses and curate the grounds of the MHRI estate literally still can be carried into effect. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Sayles Trust has not failed and shall continue to inure to the benefit of MHRI for the trust's originally stated purpose.

"The Richardson Trust applies net income 'to said The Memorial...