## Facts

- J.D. Smith created an irrevocable trust for the benefit of his “descendants,” funded primarily by a life insurance policy on the joint lives of J.D. and his wife, Inez.
- J.D. and Inez had one child who predeceased J.D.; J.D.’s grandchildren included Alden Smith, a trust beneficiary.
- Alden was criminally charged with allegedly shooting and stabbing Inez; the trustee alleged the attack was intended to hasten payment of trust proceeds.
- In the criminal proceedings, Alden was found incompetent to stand trial and ordered for evaluation based on alleged psychotic disorder and delusions.
- While the criminal case remained unresolved, trustee Judith Hallum petitioned to equitably modify the trust under former OCGA § 53-12-153, requesting that Alden be treated as if he had predeceased Inez (thereby excluding him, while preserving potential interests of any of his children born before Inez’s death).
- The superior court granted the petition and modified the trust without a criminal conviction and without an evidentiary finding that Alden committed the attack or acted from a trust-related financial motive.
- Alden appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether equitable modification under former OCGA § 53-12-153 requires clear and convincing evidence of unanticipated circumstances and necessity to serve the trust’s purposes.
2. Whether allegations of a beneficiary’s violent conduct, without a conviction or evidentiary findings of conduct and motive tied to the trust, can justify modifying a trust to treat the beneficiary as predeceased.
3. Whether excluding a lineal descendant beneficiary defeats or substantially impairs the trust’s stated purpose of benefiting the settlor’s descendants.

## Decision

- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held the superior court abused its discretion by modifying the trust on an insufficient evidentiary record.
- The trustee failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that unanticipated circumstances made modification necessary to serve the trust’s purposes or to prevent those purposes from being defeated or substantially impaired.
- The record did not establish that Alden committed the alleged attack or that any attack was motivated by accelerating trust benefits.
- Evidence of mental illness and incompetency did not supply the required proof of a trust-related motive or impairment of the trust’s purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Under former OCGA § 53-12-153, a court may equitably modify a trust only upon clear and convincing evidence that (1) unanticipated circumstances have arisen and (2) modification is necessary to serve the trust’s purposes, including preventing those purposes from being defeated or substantially impaired.
- A court must evaluate modification against the trust’s primary purpose and the settlor’s probable intent; modification cannot function as a rewrite of the dispositive plan without statutory proof of necessity.
- Serious allegations about a beneficiary’s wrongdoing, without a conviction or reliable evidentiary findings establishing conduct and a causal link to the trust’s benefits, are insufficient to justify disinheriting the beneficiary through equitable modification.
- Mental illness or incompetency, without additional proof connecting the beneficiary’s conduct to trust-related objectives or harm to trust purposes, does not satisfy the statutory standard.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a trust modification that effectively disinherited a lineal descendant based on unresolved allegations, holding that former OCGA § 53-12-153 demands clear and convincing proof that truly unanticipated circumstances make modification necessary to further the trust’s purposes.


Smith v. Hallum, 286 Ga. 834, 691 S.E.2d 848 (2010)