Utah Supreme Court

Can a surviving settlor-trustee convey trust property to his new spouse? In re Estate of West Explained

1997 UT
No. 960260
November 28, 1997
Reversed

Summary

After Hazel West died, her widower Herschel West, acting as sole trustee of their inter vivos trust containing their home, conveyed the property to himself and his second wife as joint tenants. The children from his first marriage, who were contingent beneficiaries under the trust, challenged the conveyance. The trial court found the trust was revoked by the conveyance, but the court of appeals reversed.

Analysis

In In re Estate of West, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a surviving settlor-trustee of an inter vivos trust can convey trust property to himself and his new spouse without breaching his fiduciary duties to contingent beneficiaries.

Background and Facts

Herschel and Hazel West created an inter vivos trust in 1986, naming their Provo home as the sole trust asset and themselves as trustees. The trust provided that after their deaths, the property would benefit their three adult children. After Hazel died in 1988, Herschel remarried and in 1991, acting as sole trustee, conveyed the property to himself and his second wife Marilyn as joint tenants. The children challenged this conveyance as a breach of Herschel’s fiduciary duties.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three critical questions: whether the trust authorized the trustees to revoke the trust by disposing of property, whether the surviving trustee could exercise powers previously held jointly, and whether the conveyance breached Herschel’s fiduciary duty as trustee.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. The court held that Herschel, as the surviving trustee, succeeded to all powers previously held by the joint trustees, including the power to dispose of trust property. Critically, the court determined that at the time of the conveyance, Herschel was not only the sole trustee but also the sole present beneficiary. The children’s interests were merely contingent and would not vest until the death of the surviving settlor.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the principle that settlor-trustees of revocable inter vivos trusts retain substantial control over trust assets during their lifetimes. When drafting such trusts, practitioners should carefully consider the timing of when beneficiary interests vest and whether the surviving settlor should retain full beneficial ownership. The decision also highlights the importance of clearly distinguishing between present and contingent beneficiaries in trust instruments.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

In re Estate of West

Citation

1997 UT

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 960260

Date Decided

November 28, 1997

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A surviving settlor-trustee of an inter vivos trust may convey trust property to himself and his spouse without breaching his fiduciary duty when he is the sole present beneficiary, even though contingent beneficiaries exist.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law, as the case presented only issues of law following a judgment on the pleadings

Practice Tip

When drafting inter vivos trusts where settlors serve as trustees, clearly define when beneficiary interests vest and whether the surviving settlor retains full beneficial ownership until death.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Ostler

    February 10, 2000

    A trial court must strictly comply with Rule 11(e) requirements before accepting a guilty plea, including ensuring the defendant knowingly waives the right to counsel and understands the nature and elements of the charged offenses.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Davis County v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance

    November 14, 2008

    A county cannot pursue a direct action against a tortfeasor’s insurer under Utah Code section 31A-22-201 without first attempting to execute on its judgment against the tortfeasor and having that execution returned unsatisfied.
    • Standing
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
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.