dissenting:
I would affirm the trial court. Hudelson was the surviving corporation after the merger and not the Home. The Home ceased to exist after the merger. Hudelson, as the surviving corporation, may have acquired certain rights and responsibilities of the Home after the merger, but this cannot trump Blackman’s will, which stated in the event the Home should cease to operate or exist, then the Bank as trustee was to distribute the trust’s income to other worthy charitable organizations.
Under the provisions of section 11.50(a)(2) of the Act (805 ILCS 5/11.50(a)(2) (West 2006)), the Home ceased to exist. It is not a question of ownership of assets or rights and property of the Home but of the existence of the Home. It is also apparent the Home ceased to operate. Because the Home no longer exists or operates, the alternate distribution should apply, as Blackman intended.
As to the Davis will, the trial court found the Home ceased to function in its present capacity when it ceased to exist upon its dissolution and merger and when the building housing Edgar County children since 1900 was closed and sold. The Davis will provided for an alternate distribution in the event the Home ceased to function in its present capacity.
Hudelson could not function in the “present capacity” of a nonexistent entity nor could it do so by closing and selling the building where the Home previously functioned as a home for Edgar County children.
Both the Bank and Kids Hope filed for summary judgment. Both submitted an agreed statement of facts. Both had opportunity for input and approval of those facts. Both asserted to the trial court there were no material questions of fact at issue. Once the Bank prevailed, Kids Hope changed course. It now claims there are more facts to present.
No additional facts are necessary. On this record, the trial court concluded correctly both Blackman and Davis made their intent clear, and their intent should be honored.
The Home no longer functioned as it did when Davis made her gift, and it no longer operated or existed as it did when Blackman made her gift. While reasonable minds may sometimes draw different inferences from undisputed facts, we should not permit our reasonable minds to alter the testators’ intent.