Comfort is misplaced. Plaintiffs also argue that they had a possibility of reverter that became possessory when the fee simple determinable remainder to Salvation Army failed. In their petition, plaintiffs alleged “The terms of paragraph “‘Third’” of the Decedent’s Will created a charitable trust under which the Decedent evinced a specific charitable intent that, following the termination of Defendant William F. Rosenburg’s life-estate interest in the Property in consequence of his death, the Property would be given to Defendant [Salvation Army] in trust to be used by the same in perpetuity as a rest home or children’s camp, and the Property was never to be sold.” Plaintiffs did not al h ed.1989). But see, e.g.. Industrial National Bank v. Drysdale, 84 R.I. 385, 125 A.2d 87, 91 (1956) (<HOLDING>); 15 Am.Jur.2d Charities section 155 (1996). 4
holding that cy pres could not be used to divert the proceeds of an educational trust to a civic association even though that associations activities were undoubtedly laudable holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that if testamentary trust fails proceeds are distributed to the residuary legatee holding that heirs at law of testatrix were not necessary parties to action where trust fails cy pres is inapplicable and the will contained a residuary clause and finding no basis to distinguish between the situation where the trust does or does not become operative holding that if the trust becomes operative thereafter fails and cy pres is inapplicable the devolution of the trust goes to the heirs at law and not to residuary legatees