Can parol evidence override an unambiguous trustee resignation? In re Evan O. Koller Revocable Living Trust Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in In re Evan O. Koller Revocable Living Trust addressed whether parol evidence can be used to interpret an unambiguous trustee resignation, providing important guidance for trust administration and document interpretation.

Background and Facts

LuAnn K. Shaffer served as successor trustee of the Evan O. Koller Revocable Living Trust after a professional trustee resigned. When the estate needed a loan, the bank required court appointment of different trustees. At the request of her siblings who served as co-conservators, Shaffer signed a notarized document stating: “I, LuAnn K. Shaffer, also known as LuAnn K. Nelson, hereby resign as successor trustee of [the Trust].” She delivered this resignation document to a bank employee. After the grantor’s death, Mark Koller sought appointment as successor trustee under a trust amendment naming him as Shaffer’s successor. Shaffer opposed, arguing she never intended to resign and that her resignation was conditional upon the estate obtaining a specific loan.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether parol evidence could be admitted to contradict an unambiguous written resignation, whether the resignation was properly delivered under the trust terms, and whether disputed facts regarding acceptance of trusteeship precluded summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed summary judgment for Mark Koller. Applying the parol evidence rule, the court held that written instruments speak for themselves unless ambiguous. The resignation contained no conditional language, making Shaffer’s subjective intent irrelevant. The court rejected Shaffer’s claim of latent ambiguity, noting that parties cannot create ambiguity through subjective affidavits contradicting clear terms. The court also found proper delivery occurred when the resignation reached the grantor’s representatives through a third party, satisfying the trust’s delivery requirement.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trust administration documents must contain express conditional language if contingent effectiveness is intended. Practitioners should draft resignation documents with precision, understanding that subjective intent cannot override clear written terms. The ruling also clarifies that delivery requirements in trust instruments may be satisfied through third-party intermediaries when acting on behalf of the intended recipient.