Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts reform a trust to remove provisions not intended by the settlor? Brown v. Amidan Explained
Summary
Jesse Brown sued his sister Bonnie Amidan, seeking to reform their mother Dorothy’s trust after Dorothy amended it in 2017 to divide Canyon Property equally among her five children rather than leaving it solely to Jesse. The district court found that Dorothy had testamentary capacity and that the trust amendment was not the product of undue influence, but reformed the trust to remove an unintended no-contest provision.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Brown v. Amidan, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the scope of judicial authority to reform trusts under the Utah Uniform Trust Code, particularly when unintended provisions are included through drafting errors.
Background and Facts
Dorothy Brown established a trust leaving Canyon Property in Weber County to her son Jesse, while dividing the rest of her estate equally among her five children. In 2017, at age 96, Dorothy fell and broke multiple bones. Following family conflict over the unequal distribution, Dorothy’s other children convinced her to amend the trust to divide all property equally. The amendment was drafted by a lawyer at the children’s request and included a no-contest provision that Dorothy had not requested and was unaware of. After Dorothy’s death, Jesse sued trustee Bonnie Amidan, claiming the amendment resulted from undue influence.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three main issues: whether the district court properly excluded expert rebuttal testimony, whether it could reform the trust to remove the no-contest provision despite reformation not being pleaded, and whether the trust amendment was the product of undue influence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding trust reformation, the court held that Utah Code § 75B-2-415 authorizes courts to reform trusts when proved by clear and convincing evidence that the terms were affected by a mistake of expression. The no-contest provision constituted such a mistake because Dorothy never requested it and was unaware of its inclusion. The court also ruled that Rule 54(c) permitted reformation despite not being pleaded, as long as the relief was supported by evidence and did not prejudice the parties.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates Utah courts’ broad equitable power to correct trust drafting errors. Practitioners should carefully review trust documents to ensure they reflect the settlor’s actual intentions, as courts can remove unintended provisions even when reformation is not specifically requested. The case also highlights the importance of maintaining complete appellate records, as the appellant’s failure to include key trial transcripts created presumptions favoring the trial court’s rulings.
Case Details
Case Name
Brown v. Amidan
Citation
2025 UT App 144
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230995-CA
Date Decided
October 9, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court may reform a trust to remove unintended provisions under the Utah Uniform Trust Code when proved by clear and convincing evidence that a mistake of expression occurred, and may do so even when reformation was not pleaded if supported by the evidence and not prejudicial.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for exclusion of expert testimony; correction-of-error standard for trust reformation legal conclusion; correctness for statutory interpretation; clear error for factual findings underlying trust reformation; correctness for ultimate legal conclusion of lack of undue influence, but clear error for specific factual findings
Practice Tip
When challenging trust modifications, ensure complete appellate records including all trial transcripts, as incomplete records create a presumption of regularity favoring the trial court’s rulings.
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.