uniform trust code - Kansas Judicial Branch

1
2
3
4
While this section is not directed principally at honorary trusts, it may be so applied. See
Sections 408, 409.
Because termination of a trust under this section is initiated by the trustee or ordered by the
court, termination is not precluded by a spendthrift provision.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SECTION 415. REFORMATION TO CORRECT MISTAKES. The court may reform
the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor’s intention if it is
proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the settlor’s intent and the terms of the trust were
affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement.
Kansas Comment
This section generally conforms to Kansas law. See Collins v. Richardson, 168 Kan. 203,
209, 212 P.2d 302 (1949) (cause of action for reformation of trust based on mistake proper);
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 260 Kan. 573, Syl. 13, 921 P.2d 803 (1996) (extrinsic evidence admissible
to establish settlor’s intention in written trust agreement upon showing of fraud, duress, mistake or
other ground for reformation or rescission).
UTC Comment
Reformation of inter vivos instruments to correct for a mistake of law or fact is a longestablished
remedy. Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 12.1
(Tentative Draft No. 1, 1995), upon which this section is based, clarifies that this doctrine also
applies to wills.
This section applies whether the mistake is one of expression or one of inducement. A
mistake of expression occurs when the terms of the trust misstate the settlor’s intention, fail to
include a term that was intended to be included, or include a term that was not intended to be
excluded. A mistake in the inducement occurs when the terms of the trust accurately reflect what
the settlor intended to be included or excluded but this intention was based on a mistake of fact or
law. Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 12.1 cmt. i (Tentative
Draft No. 1, 1995).
Reformation is different from clarification of an ambiguity. Clarification of an ambiguity
involves the interpretation of language already in the instrument. Reformation, on the other hand,
involves the addition of language not originally in the instrument, or the deletion of language
originally included by mistake. Because reformation involves the addition of language to the
instrument, or deletion of language in an instrument that may appear clear on its face, reliance on
extrinsic evidence is essential. To guard against the possibility of unreliable or contrived evidence
77