“What’s nice about it, from Harvard’s point of view and I think from her son’s point of view [is that] he loved Harvard, he was generous to Harvard,” he said.

In a statement, Miller asserts that Harvard inheriting the trust money “clearly is not what my grandmother would have wanted” and “would have been anathema to her.”

“She wanted to make sure that this money—which she regarded as a Godsend—was conserved and put to work for the family. She was adamant on the subject,” she said. “Protecting her family financially became very important to her.”

The court disagreed with this argument.

“Had Kate intended to keep the reversionary interest in the trust property in the family, as appellants argue, she could have executed a Recital that did so,” the opinion says. “But instead, she named Harvard University as the remainderman.”

Heckscher said the Clark descendants are “off their bearings” in claiming the money should be theirs.

“I would have been surprised if [the decision] had been the other way,” he said.

But Miller criticized Harvard for trying “to profit from our family tragedy” in her statement. She said the award represents “a windfall into Harvard’s overstuffed lap.”

She added that the Clark family had already been very generous to the University, citing Joseph Clark Jr.’s service on the Board of Overseers and other work with Harvard, as well as the sale of his Wyoming ranch to fund an endowed professorship.

“I think, too, that Harvard has gotten enough from the Clarks,” Miller said.

If the petition for reargument is not granted, Bullitt said his clients would then have 30 days to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

A spokesperson for Harvard declined to comment because legal proceedings in the case may continue.

—Staff writer Stephen M. Marks can be reached at marks@fas.harvard.edu.