1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 142 N.J.
  5. 142 N.J. 639 (1995)
 

HILL v. ESTATE OF RICHARDS

142 N.J. 639 (1995)

667 A.2d 695

LEONARD F. HILL, KENNETH F. KUNZMAN AND WILLIAM L. STRONG, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES UNDER AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 30, 1944, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ESTATE OF MARY LEA JOHNSON RICHARDS, DEFENDANT, AND MARTIN RICHARDS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND ERIC BRUCE RYAN, SEWARD JOHNSON RYAN, RODERICK NEWBOLD RYAN, HILLARY ARMSTRONG RYAN, ALICE RUTH RYAN MARRIOTT, QUENTIN REGIS RYAN, JESSICA RYAN, HEATHYR NELSON RYAN, EMILY MASON RYAN, MARY LEA MARTHA RYAN, SCOTLAN TAYLOR RYAN, HARRISON HUNTER RYAN, CHRISTOPHER RODERICK RYAN, JOHNATHAN DILL RYAN, MATTHEW RYAN MARRIOTT, STEPHANIE RUTH MARRIOTT, ALLISON KENDALL MARRIOTT, IAN QUENTIN RYAN, ZACHARY WILLIAM RYAN AND WILLIAM A.K. RYAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided December 14, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harry Heher, Jr., and Joseph C. Mahon, argued the cause for appellate Eric B. Ryan (Heher, Clarke & St. Landau and Hill Wallack, attorneys for Eric B. Ryan; and Simon & Lupo, attorneys for Seward Johnson Ryan, Hillary Armstrong Ryan, and Quentin Regis Ryan).

Andrea J. Sullivan, argued the cause for appellants Jessica Ryan, Emily Mason Ryan, Mary Lea Martha Ryan, Scotlan Taylor Ryan, Harrison Hunter Ryan, Christopher Roderick Ryan, Jonathan Dill Ryan, Matthew Ryan Marriott, Stephanie Ruth Marriott, Allison Kendall Marriott, Ian Quentin Ryan, and Zachary William Ryan (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin & Davis, attorneys).

James C. Pitney, argued the cause for appellants Leonard F. Hill, Kenneth F. Kunzman and William L. Strong, etc. (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, attorneys).

Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, argued the cause for appellants Alice Ruth Ryan Marriott, Roderick Newbold Ryan, and William A.K. Ryan (Collier, Jacob & Mills, attorneys).

Neal Solomon, argued the cause for respondent (Pellettieri Rabstein and Altman, attorneys).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by O'HERN, J.

This appeal concerns the proper allocation of federal income tax liability between the income and principal shares of a trust. Federal income tax law may disregard the law of trust and estates in determining whether a distribution to beneficiaries is of income or principal. In order to avoid the tracing of income, the Internal Revenue Code provides generally that, to the extent that a trust

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases