## Facts

- In 1972, Alfred and Peggy Bieley created an irrevocable trust for their son, Harlan, primarily to fund his education.
- Alfred and Peggy were settlors and co-trustees; they also held remainder interests in the trust principal, and the instrument stated they waived any right to revoke or modify the trust.
- The trust was to terminate in November 1983 or on Harlan’s death; upon termination, accumulated undistributed income would go to Harlan (or his estate) and the principal would revert to Alfred and Peggy.
- In 1977, during the parties’ dissolution proceeding, the trial court amended the trust to permit invasion of principal for Harlan’s educational expenses.
- In connection with the 1977 amendment, Alfred and Peggy executed a written agreement releasing their remainder interests in the principal.
- After the divorce, trust income was insufficient to pay Harlan’s education costs; Peggy sought to invade principal under the amended terms, but Alfred refused to execute documents required to do so.
- Peggy filed an enforcement action to compel Alfred, as trustee, to implement the amendment and invade corpus for Harlan’s educational expenses.
- The trial court upheld the amendment’s validity and ordered invasion of the corpus; Alfred appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a dissolution court may approve an amendment to an existing irrevocable trust created by the spouses for their child’s benefit to permit invasion of principal for educational expenses.
2. Whether the amendment was invalid because the trust’s primary beneficiary was not a party to the dissolution proceeding.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order enforcing the amendment and directing invasion of the trust corpus for Harlan’s educational expenses.
- The court held the dissolution court could validly effectuate the amendment where the settlors/remainder beneficiaries consented and released their remainder interests.
- The court held the beneficiary’s non-joinder did not invalidate the amendment because the modification benefited him and did not impair his beneficial interest.
- The trial court properly compelled Alfred, as trustee, to comply with the trust as amended.

## Legal Principles

- An irrevocable trust may be modified when persons holding interests that would be adversely affected consent, or when the modification does not adversely affect the beneficiary whose interests are implicated.
- A dissolution court may approve and enforce spouses’ agreements affecting property interests, including trust-related interests, if third-party rights are not impaired.
- Non-joinder of a beneficiary does not defeat a trust modification when the change is to the beneficiary’s advantage and no vested beneficial interest is reduced or eliminated without representation or consent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed enforcement of a divorce-court-approved amendment allowing invasion of an “irrevocable” educational trust’s principal because the parents consented and relinquished their remainder interests, and the child beneficiary’s interests were improved rather than harmed despite his absence from the dissolution proceeding.


Bieley v. Bieley, 398 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1981)