Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

including those created for the benefit of wife pursuant to decedent’s will.
Wife argued that petitioner was an adopted-out child and was not a
beneficiary of the trusts. Adopted children are entitled to equal rights to
those of biological children for all rights, including rights of inheritance.
Adopted-out children do not have inheritance rights with respect to their
biological relatives. The Court held that the petitioner’s second adoption
did not remove her from the class of issue because she was the adopted
daughter of decedent at his death. Wife also argued that the petitioner was
not a beneficiary of the 1995 Trust because her interest did not vest until
the oldest child was 30. The Court held that a trust that is subject to a
condition precedent does not deny her standing to protect her interest, and
her interest in that trust was fully vested, subject only to the condition of
her survival.
18. Evans v. Moyer, 282 P.3d 1203 (Wyo. 2012). The term “convenient
installment” did not require quarterly payments of income to
beneficiary. Beneficiary filed a petition against the trustee seeking an
accounting, distribution of income, and a declaration of the meaning of the
trust documents. The trust agreement provided that payments could be
made to the beneficiary’s mother in order to avoid a generation-skipping
transfer tax, which the Court held was appropriate. Additionally, the
Court ruled that the payment of income in “convenient installments” did
not mean in quarterly installments, the term used in other trusts created
under the agreement. Finally, the phrase that principal “may” be
distributed to the beneficiary was non-mandatory and did not require any
distribution to be made.
19. Kristoff v. Centier Bank, 985 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The
primary purpose of the trust was not defeated by the fact that the
beneficiary did not have children as that could have been anticipated
by the settlor. Settlor established two trusts for her daughters which were
exempt from generation-skipping transfer taxes. Neither daughter had
children, and one daughter sought to have the trust terminated arguing that
the primary purpose of the trust was defeated due to the fact that she did
not have children. The Court held that while tax avoidance was a part of
the purpose of the trust, it was not the only purpose. Additionally, the fact
that the beneficiary did not have children was not an unforeseen
consequence. The terms of the trust agreement are clear and there was no
reason to terminate the trust.
21. In re G.B. Van Dusen Marital Trust, A12-0503, A12-0994, A12-1469
(Minn. Ct. App. 2013). Trustee misinterpreted trust agreement by
refusing to make discretionary principal distributions to surviving
spouse. Decedent’s revocable trust provided that upon his death, a portion
of his assets were to be allocated to the marital trust for the benefit of his
wife. The trust agreement provided for mandatory income as well as
principal distributions “as the Trustees deem advisable to provide for her
41