Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealtrialaffidavitmotiontrustappellant
appealtrialmotionburden of proofestate planningtrustappellantappellee

Related Cases

Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49
View Case »
In re Oshkosh Foundation, 61 Wis.2d 432, 213 N.W.2d 54, 68 A.L.R.3d 1041
View Case »
Estate of Rozell v. Betty Rozell Revocable Trust, 299 P.3d 500, 2013 OK CIV APP 35
View Case »
Swift v. Hiscock, 344 Mass. 691, 183 N.E.2d 875
View Case »
In re Estate of Kerr, 134 Wash.2d 328, 949 P.2d 810
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Estate of Tuthill, 754 A.2d 272

Facts

John and Erna Tuthill created a trust with the intention of providing for Mrs. Tuthill's support during her lifetime. After Mr. Tuthill's death, it was discovered that the trust language did not allow for distributions to Mrs. Tuthill, which led to the appellants arguing that a scrivener's mistake had occurred. They presented affidavits and letters indicating Mr. Tuthill's intent to support his wife, but the trial court denied their motion to reform the trust, citing a lack of clear evidence of intent.

On September 29, 1993, John and Erna Tuthill met with Joy S. Chambers, Esquire for estate planning purposes.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying the appellants' Motion to Reform the Trust due to the absence of specific extrinsic evidence of the settlor's intent?

The single issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellants' Motion to Reform the Trust because the appellants failed to introduce certain evidence that the trial court believed was necessary to satisfy the appellants' burden of proof.

Rule

To grant a motion for reformation of a trust, the party seeking reformation must provide clear and convincing evidence of the settlor's intent, which can include extrinsic circumstances and evidentiary factors.

The party seeking reformation bears the burden of establishing the settlor's actual intent has been displaced by the error.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by the appellants, including affidavits from the attorney who drafted the trust and a letter outlining the intended use of trust assets for Mrs. Tuthill's support. The court concluded that the trial court's reliance on the absence of a direct statement from Mr. Tuthill was misplaced, as the evidence provided was sufficient to establish his intent.

In rejecting the appellants' offer of proof, the trial court made no findings as to why this evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy appellants' burden other than to suggest that, in the absence of a clear statement by Mr. Tuthill of his intent, the appellants could not prevail.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the evidence regarding Mr. Tuthill's intent.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case.

Who won?

Appellants prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeals found that the evidence they presented was sufficient to establish the decedent's intent to provide for his wife.

No brief has been filed on behalf of appellees. All parties to this case seek reformation of the trust.

You must be