In the ever-evolving world of estate planning, recent legal developments signify a noteworthy shift in how courts handle trust amendments. Historically, the methods outlined within a trust agreement were strictly adhered to; however, recent cases indicate a trend towards considering the probable intent of the settlor, even when amendment procedures are not precisely followed as an estate planning lawyer can explain further:
Haggerty V. Thornton
A pivotal case illustrating this trend is Haggerty v. Thornton (San Diego County Superior Court 37-2019-00028694-PR-TR-CTL, February 8, 2024). In this case, Jeane Bertsch had created a revocable trust in 2015, initially designating an accountant as her successor trustee and leaving a specific bequest to her niece, Brianna Haggerty. In 2016, she amended the trust to name Haggerty as the successor trustee and primary beneficiary. However, following a personal disagreement, Bertsch drafted a handwritten amendment in 2018 removing Haggerty from the trust, which lacked notarization and did not conform to the amendment procedures specified in the trust document.
After Bertsch’s passing, a legal dispute arose over the validity of the 2018 amendment. Haggerty challenged the amendment’s validity, claiming it was not properly “acknowledged” as required by the trust. However, the California probate court upheld the handwritten amendment, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The courts referenced California Probate Code Section 15402, which allows for trust modification through the statutory method unless the trust document explicitly states otherwise. Bertsch’s handwritten note, being signed and delivered as required, was deemed a valid modification under this statutory framework.
The California Supreme Court’s affirmation of this decision underscores a broader trend seen in similar cases, such as In Re Gregory Hall Trust (Mich. Ct. App. March 16, 2023). Courts are increasingly prioritizing the probable intent of the deceased settlor over rigid procedural adherence. This movement towards “substantial compliance” over strict compliance suggests that courts may accommodate amendments that reflect the settlor’s true intentions, even if procedural missteps occur.
While this trend may offer flexibility, it also poses potential risks as our friends at Bott & Associates, Ltd. can further outline for us. Misinterpretations of intent or increased litigation could arise, posing challenges for beneficiaries and estate executors. Consequently, these developments emphasize the necessity of comprehensive estate planning. Get in touch with us so we can help ensure that your estate plan accurately reflects your wishes and protects against potential disputes.
In summary, the evolving legal landscape for trust amendments highlights the importance of clarity and precision in estate planning. As courts lean towards interpreting probable intent, it becomes crucial for settlors to articulate their wishes clearly and ensure that any modifications are documented in a manner consistent with statutory requirements. By doing so, you safeguard your legacy and ensure that your estate plan achieves its intended purpose.
If you are venturing into the realm of estate planning, it is best to contact a lawyer near you to get started. They can guide you on the documents you need as well as updates to laws that might affect what you want to happen with your estate.