Hamel v. Hamel, 299 P.3d 278

Arthur Hamel created a revocable living trust with Dennis Hamel and Leona Newell as Trustees, including a no-contest clause.
Arthur amended the trust to give Dennis a three-year post-death option to purchase the farmland, with division to beneficiaries if not purchased.
After Arthur’s death in 2004, Dennis and his wife entered a six-year contract for deed with the Trustees to purchase the farmland for $244,000 at 5% interest, with $10,000 down.
Lawrence, a beneficiary, sought termination of the trust, immediate distribution, removal of Trustees, and an accounting; he also attacked the farm sale and no-contest clause.
The district court ruled the Trustees could finance the sale under the contract and that the trust was not terminated immediately; it also enforced the no-contest clause and awarded costs.
On appeal, the court held the trust was not to terminate immediately but Trustees exceeded the 3-year limit for the farm sale; no-set-aside of the contract; probable cause found to challenge the sale; no-contest clause enforcement reversed; remanded for fees; cross-appeal moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Trust terminate immediately on Arthur's death?	Lawrence argues immediate termination was intended.	Trustees argue ambiguity; not immediate termination.	Not terminated immediately; ambiguity resolved in Lawrence favor.
Were Trustees authorized to finance the sale to Dennis beyond 3 years?	Sale extended beyond 3 years violated the Trust.	Trust grants broad powers; sale authorized.	Trustees lacked authority to extend beyond 3 years; contract violated the Trust.
Did enforcing the no-contest clause foreclose Lawrence’s rights?	No-contest clause enforcement should not bar legitimate challenges.	If challenged improperly, clause applies.	No-contest enforcement reversed; not properly applied.
Did Lawrence have probable cause to challenge the sale?	Yes; there was probable cause to question the contract terms.	No substantial basis; challenge was improper.	Lawrence had probable cause; reversal of no-contest ruling.
Should Lawrence recover attorney fees and costs under K.S.A. 58a-1004?	Lawrence should recover fees/costs.	Costs awarded to Trustees; no fees for Lawrence.	Remanded to consider fees/costs; district court to weigh factors.

In re Estate of Haneberg, 270 Kan. 365 (Kan. 2000) (statutory/contract interpretation guiding trust construction)
In re Estate of Oswald, 45 Kan. App. 2d 106 (Kan. App. 2010) (trust interpretation with appellate review standard)
In re Estate of Somers, 277 Kan. 761 (Kan. 2004) (terminating trusts concept and purposes)
Campbell, 19 Kan. App. 2d 795 (Kan. App. 1994) (probable cause standard for no-contest clauses)
Koch, 18 Kan. App. 2d 202 (Kan. App. 1993) (no-contest clause enforcement framework)