## Facts

- Hazel I. McCreath created a 1992 revocable trust holding the family farm and related mineral interests, naming herself and her daughter, Charlotte M. Ritchey, as co-trustees.
- The trust directed equal distribution to Hazel’s three children (Charlotte and two sons) upon termination.
- The trust permitted revocation only by a signed writing delivered to the trustees, effective upon delivery, and required majority concurrence of fiduciaries for trustee decisions unless discretion was expressly placed in one fiduciary.
- In 2001, Hazel executed and recorded a quitclaim deed, acting alone as trustee, purporting to convey the farm and certain mineral interests to Charlotte individually, free of the trust.
- In 2005, Hazel executed a handwritten will stating it revoked “all prior wills and trusts,” divided personal property equally, and left the residue 80% to Charlotte and 10% to each son; Hazel delivered the will to Charlotte.
- After Hazel’s death, the sons sought declaratory relief concerning the trust, the deed, and the farm, and asserted claims against Charlotte including breach of fiduciary duty and related equitable and statutory theories.
- The district court, on a motion to determine questions of law, ruled that the will did not revoke the trust and the 2001 quitclaim deed was ineffective to transfer trust realty out of the trust; Charlotte appealed, including on procedural grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether a will stating it revokes “all prior wills and trusts” revoked a revocable inter vivos trust whose terms required revocation by a signed writing delivered to the trustees.
2. Whether a co-trustee/settlor’s unilateral quitclaim deed could transfer trust real property to a beneficiary individually when the trust required majority concurrence of fiduciaries.
3. Whether the trial court erred by deciding these questions on a motion for determination of law without an evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- The will did not revoke the 1992 revocable trust because the trust did not authorize revocation by will and the will did not satisfy the trust’s specified revocation method.
- The 2001 quitclaim deed executed by Hazel alone as trustee was ineffective to convey the farm out of the trust because it violated the trust’s co-trustee/majority-concurrence decision rule.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in resolving the disputes as questions of law based on the written instruments, without an evidentiary hearing on intent.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of a revocable trust is governed primarily by the trust’s terms; when a trust specifies a revocation method (e.g., a signed writing delivered to the trustees), that method must be followed absent a valid alternative authorized by the instrument or law.
- A general testamentary clause purporting to revoke “trusts” does not operate as a present revocation of an inter vivos trust where the trust requires a specific revocation procedure and does not permit revocation by will.
- Co-trustee governance provisions (including majority-concurrence requirements) are enforceable limits on trustee authority; unilateral acts that contravene those limits are ineffective as trust acts.
- A settlor’s simultaneous status as trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary does not permit disposition of trust property “free of trust” in a manner inconsistent with the trust’s fiduciary decision rules.
- Contract-and-instrument interpretation principles permit courts to resolve disputes as questions of law when the material facts are undisputed and the outcome turns on the written instruments’ terms.

## Conclusion

The court held that the decedent’s will did not revoke her revocable trust because the trust required revocation by a delivered written instrument, and it further held that the decedent’s unilateral quitclaim deed, executed as a single co-trustee, could not remove the farm from the trust in violation of the trust’s co-trustee decision requirements, so the trust and its distribution scheme remained controlling.


In re Estate of McCreath, 240 P.3d 413 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)