Utah Supreme Court
Does the Utah Uniform Trust Code allow liberal trust modifications? Patterson v. Patterson Explained
Summary
Darlene Patterson amended her family trust to remove her son Ron as a beneficiary before her death in 2006. The district court invalidated the amendment based on Banks v. Means, which required strict compliance with trust terms. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Utah Uniform Trust Code superseded Banks and permitted the amendment.
Analysis
In Patterson v. Patterson, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a fundamental shift in how Utah law treats modifications to revocable trusts, demonstrating the significant impact of statutory changes on established case law.
Background and Facts
Darlene Patterson created a family protection trust in 1999, naming her children as beneficiaries. The trust document stated that beneficiaries had “presently vested interests subject to divestment which shall continue until this Trust is revoked or terminated.” Shortly before her death in 2006, Darlene executed an amendment removing her son Ron as a beneficiary, stating she had “already properly provided for this son during his lifetime.” Ron challenged the amendment’s validity after Darlene’s death.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Darlene’s amendment was valid under existing Utah law. The district court applied Banks v. Means, which required settlors to strictly comply with trust terms and held that completely divesting a beneficiary required full trust revocation, not mere amendment. However, the Utah Legislature had enacted the Utah Uniform Trust Code (UUTC) in 2004, which was not argued below.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Despite the UUTC not being raised in the trial court, the Utah Supreme Court addressed it as controlling authority that directly bore upon the issue. The court held that Utah Code section 75-7-605 statutorily overruled Banks by allowing liberal modification of revocable trusts. Under the UUTC, settlors can amend trusts through “any other method manifesting clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent” unless the trust expressly makes its amendment method exclusive. The court found Darlene’s amendment provided clear and convincing evidence of her intent to eliminate Ron’s interest.
Practice Implications
This decision represents a significant liberalization of Utah trust law. Practitioners should recognize that the UUTC treats revocable trusts as will equivalents, giving settlors broad authority to modify dispositive provisions. The “presently vested interests” language common in older trusts does not prevent amendment under current law. When analyzing trust modifications, practitioners must apply UUTC provisions rather than pre-2004 case law requiring strict compliance with trust terms.
Case Details
Case Name
Patterson v. Patterson
Citation
2011 UT 68
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20100011
Date Decided
November 1, 2011
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The Utah Uniform Trust Code statutorily overruled Banks v. Means and allows liberal modification of revocable trusts without requiring strict compliance with trust terms.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and grant of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging or defending trust amendments, analyze whether the Utah Uniform Trust Code’s liberal amendment provisions apply rather than relying solely on pre-2004 case law.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.