Can broad language in a power of attorney authorize trust modifications? In re J. Melvin and Glenna D. Bulloch Living Trust Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about the scope of authority under powers of attorney in trust contexts in In re J. Melvin and Glenna D. Bulloch Living Trust. The case demonstrates the importance of express authorization when agents seek to modify trusts on behalf of principals.

Background and Facts

J. Melvin and Glenna Bulloch established a living trust in 1996, with provisions requiring both grantors to consent to amendments. In 1998, Melvin granted Glenna broad power of attorney authority, including language allowing her to act “with respect to all matters to the fullest extent” and “to do any and all other things necessary and proper” in conducting his trust affairs. In April 2013, Glenna signed a trust amendment in her individual capacity and as Melvin’s attorney-in-fact, altering property distributions. Melvin died two days later without signing the amendment. Glenna later sought to void the amendment, claiming she lacked authority under Utah Code section 75-5-503.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the power of attorney’s broad language provided express authorization to modify the trust as required by Utah Code section 75-5-503(1). This statute prohibits attorneys-in-fact from modifying inter vivos revocable trusts unless “expressly authorized in the power of attorney.” The beneficiaries argued that the broad grants of authority were sufficient, while Glenna contended no express authorization existed.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling that the amendment was void. Applying principles of strict construction for powers of attorney, the court found that section 75-5-503 requires direct and explicit authorization to modify trusts. The court rejected arguments that broad general language could confer such authority, noting that “general expressions, however broad, are construed as limited to acts of the kind indicated by the appointment.” The power of attorney specifically referenced the principal’s authority “as Trustee,” but the trust document limited amendment authority to grantors, not trustees.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that express authorization cannot be inferred from general grants of authority in powers of attorney. Practitioners must include specific language authorizing trust modifications if such power is intended. The ruling also demonstrates courts’ willingness to exercise docket management discretion by entering final judgment on resolved issues while leaving unrelated trust administration matters for separate proceedings.