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

contractappealtrust
contractappealsummary judgmenttrust

Related Cases

F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1999-1 Trade Cases P 72,547, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4689, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5991
View Case »
In re Mardigian Estate, 502 Mich. 154, 917 N.W.2d 325
View Case »
In re Estate of Prestie, 122 Nev. 807, 138 P.3d 520
View Case »
Cassibry v. Cassibry, 217 So.3d 698
View Case »
Estate of Saueressig, 38 Cal.4th 1045, 136 P.3d 201, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5356, 06 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7911
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mangels v. Cornell, 40 Kan.App.2d 110, 189 P.3d 573

Facts

Bud and Thelma Helwig executed a revocable trust agreement in March 1996, which was funded with farmland and mineral interests. The trust specified that net income would be distributed to the settlors or the survivor and then to their adopted children. After Bud's death in March 2004, Thelma amended the trust twice, changing the successor trustees and altering income distribution. These amendments were challenged by Darrel and Carl Mangels, Bud's adopted sons, who argued that the trust did not allow for amendments after Bud's death.

In March 1996, Bud and Thelma Helwig, husband and wife, executed a revocable trust agreement designated 'The Helwig Revocable Trust.' The trust was funded with five 1/4–sections of farmland and 'mineral and royalty interests' in another two and 1/2–sections, all in Grant County.

Issue

Did the district court err in validating trust amendments executed after the death of one of the grantors/settlors?

Did the district court err in validating trust amendments executed after the death of one of the grantors/settlors?

Rule

The primary objective of trust law is to carry out a settlor's intent, and if the text of the trust is plain and unambiguous, the intent can be ascertained from the language used. A trust is considered joint, mutual, and contractual if the language and provisions indicate such intent.

The primary objective of trust law is to carry out a settlor's intent. Consequently, if the text of the trust indenture is plain and unambiguous, the intent of the trustor (settlor) can be ascertained from the language employed.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the trust agreement, particularly the revocability provision, and concluded that it indicated the trust was intended to be joint and mutual. The court emphasized that the trust's language did not support the notion that either settlor could amend or revoke the trust individually after the death of one settlor. The court also considered the overall structure and provisions of the trust, which reinforced the conclusion that both grantors needed to act together for any amendments.

We conclude that the language of paragraph 13 clearly and unambiguously permits amendment and revocation by both grantors.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the trust was a joint, mutual, and contractual revocable trust that could not be amended or revoked by the surviving settlor alone. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The district court erred in its construction of the trust. Summary judgment should have been entered for the Mangels, thus invalidating the amendments after the death of Bud.

Who won?

Darrel and Carl Mangels prevailed in the case because the court found that the trust could not be amended or revoked by the surviving settlor alone, thus invalidating the amendments made after Bud's death.

The Court of Appeals, Greene, J., held that: 1 trust's revocability provision did not give grantors the power to amend or revoke individually, and 2 trust was a joint, mutual, and contractual revocable trust.

You must be