## Facts

- Darlene Patterson created the Darlene Patterson Family Protection Trust in 1999 as an inter vivos trust for her benefit during life, with remainder to be divided among her children at death.
- The trust reserved to Darlene the right to “amend, modify, or revoke the Trust in whole or in part” by written instrument.
- The trust stated beneficiaries’ interests were “presently vested interests subject to divestment” until the trust was revoked or otherwise terminated.
- Darlene executed an additional amendment and a restatement after the original trust; those instruments were not challenged.
- In 2006, shortly before her death, Darlene executed a further written amendment intended to remove her son Ronald S. Patterson as a beneficiary and stated she had intentionally provided nothing further for him because she had already provided for him during his lifetime.
- Darlene died approximately 11 months after executing the 2006 amendment.
- After Darlene’s death, Ron sued the trust and the estate seeking a declaration that the 2006 amendment was void.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah Code § 75-7-605 permits a settlor of a revocable trust to amend the trust to entirely remove an existing beneficiary.
2. Whether prior Utah precedent limiting divestment of a beneficiary’s “vested” trust interest without revoking the trust remained controlling after enactment of the Utah Uniform Trust Code.
3. Whether the 2006 amendment was valid where it was executed in writing consistent with the trust’s stated method of amendment.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment that had invalidated the amendment.
- The court held the 2006 amendment removing Ron as a beneficiary was valid under Utah Code § 75-7-605.
- The court concluded § 75-7-605 statutorily overruled the court’s earlier interpretation in Banks v. Means to the extent it restricted a settlor’s ability to divest a beneficiary by amendment of a revocable trust.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding that the amendment was effective.

## Legal Principles

- A settlor of a revocable trust retains broad statutory authority under Utah Code § 75-7-605 to modify the trust, including removing a beneficiary, when the modification complies with the trust’s method of amendment or applicable statutory requirements.
- A beneficiary’s interest in a revocable trust is defeasible during the settlor’s lifetime and may be eliminated through a valid exercise of the settlor’s reserved power to amend.
- Trust language describing beneficiaries’ interests as “vested subject to divestment” does not prevent complete removal of a beneficiary when the trust is revocable and the settlor reserved a power to amend in whole or in part by written instrument.
- Where a revocable trust authorizes amendment by written instrument and the settlor executes a written amendment with clear intent, courts will generally enforce the amendment absent a legal defect under the governing trust statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that Utah’s Uniform Trust Code permits a settlor to amend a revocable trust to remove an existing beneficiary, and that the statutory scheme displaced earlier case law that had limited such divestment absent revocation of the trust.


Patterson v. Patterson, 266 P.3d 828 (Utah 2011)