## Facts

- In 1940, Robert H. Button created a revocable inter vivos trust of Washington real property, retained a life estate, and named Old National Bank of Washington as trustee.
- The 1940 trust directed that, upon Button’s death, the remaining trust property be delivered to his mother, Audrey A. Burg, and contained no provision addressing what would occur if Burg predeceased Button.
- The 1940 trust allowed revocation or modification only by a written instrument signed by Button and delivered to the trustee (and, if trustee duties changed, with trustee approval).
- In 1964, while living in California and in poor health, Button signed documents purporting to revoke the 1940 trust and create a new trust benefiting his niece, Stefanie Button (with other provisions and a charitable remainder).
- Button sent the 1964 documents to his attorney with instructions indicating the change was conditional and should be held; the revocation documents were never delivered to the trustee.
- In 1966, Burg died intestate; Button died 13 days later, leaving no separate dispositive instrument governing the 1940 trust property.
- The trustee sought judicial instructions due to competing claims between Burg’s heirs and the guardian of Stefanie Button.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1964 documents and related correspondence effectively revoked or modified the 1940 trust when the trust required a signed writing delivered to the trustee.
2. If the 1940 trust controlled, whether the remainder gift to Burg lapsed because she predeceased Button, or instead passed to her lineal descendants under RCW 11.12.110, and whether that statute applies to an inter vivos trust.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held the 1940 trust was not revoked or modified because the required delivery of the revocation instrument to the trustee did not occur.
- The Court held the remainder gift to Burg did not lapse; it passed to Burg’s lineal descendants under RCW 11.12.110.
- The Court applied the anti-lapse statute to this revocable inter vivos trust because it operated as a will substitute for disposition at death.
- The Court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the property reverted to Button’s estate and declined to rest the outcome on a vesting theory.

## Legal Principles

- When a revocable trust specifies a method of revocation or modification, the settlor must comply with that method; executing inconsistent documents without satisfying required formal steps (including delivery to the trustee) is ineffective.
- The settlor’s contemporaneous communications and conduct may confirm whether the settlor intended an immediate, operative revocation where the revocation method is disputed.
- Washington’s anti-lapse statute, RCW 11.12.110, can apply to a revocable inter vivos trust distributing property at the settlor’s death, absent a contrary intent in the instrument.
- A gift in such a trust to a qualifying relative who predeceases the settlor passes to the relative’s lineal descendants rather than reverting to the settlor’s estate.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the trust’s stated revocation formalities, leaving the 1940 trust in effect, and treated the trust’s death-time remainder gift like a testamentary disposition by applying RCW 11.12.110 so that the predeceased mother’s share passed to her lineal descendants.


In re Estate of Button, 490 P.2d 731 (Wash. 1971)