In Re Trust of Marsha Milot (Jennifer Milot, Appellant), 2026 VT 7

Marsha Milot created a revocable trust in 2009, remained settlor and initial trustee, and named Valerie Wiederhorn and Jennifer Milot among the remainder beneficiaries. 1
After Jennifer requested the trust instrument in 2024, the probate division ordered in camera filing, found her entitled to the trust document under § 813(b)(1), and unsealed it. 2
Jennifer then sought additional trust information, claiming Marsha had become incapacitated and she was a qualified beneficiary entitled to administration information. 3
The co-trustees argued the petition was moot, asserted they had already provided all information owed, and asked for dismissal with prejudice. 4
Jennifer later alleged Wiederhorn misused trust assets and requested discovery and leave to amend to seek Wiederhorn’s removal under § 706. 5
The probate division dismissed the petition, concluding § 603 left no duties to remainder beneficiaries while the trust remained revocable and refusing to open equitable proceedings. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 813 require trust information disclosure while settlor lives? 7	Jennifer claimed she was entitled to administration information as a qualified beneficiary.	Co-trustees said § 603 made duties run only to Marsha while trust remained revocable.	No; § 603 bars § 813 disclosure to beneficiaries while settlor is alive. 8
Does settlor incapacity make the revocable trust irrevocable for disclosure rights? 9	Jennifer argued Marsha’s incapacity made the trust effectively irrevocable.	Co-trustees relied on trust-code comments stating incapacity does not change revocability.	No; incapacity does not convert the trust into an irrevocable trust. 10
Could Jennifer seek trustee removal under § 706? 11	Jennifer sought discovery and amendment to pursue removal of Wiederhorn for misconduct.	Co-trustees opposed amendment and argued revocable-trust rules barred beneficiary standing.	Yes, if incapacity is shown; beneficiaries may seek removal under § 706. 12
Did the probate division err by ignoring Jennifer’s motion to amend? 13	Jennifer said amendment should be freely allowed and the court failed to address it.	Co-trustees said amendment was improper and unnecessary.	Yes; failure to address the amendment request was an abuse of discretion. 14

In re Est. of Johnson, 158 Vt. 557 (Vt. 1992) (appellate review is limited to pure questions of law 15)
In re Peter Val Preda Trs., 2019 VT 61 (Vt. 2019) (probate dismissal raising only legal questions is reviewable 16)
In re Est. of Alden v. Dee, 190 Vt. 401 (Vt. 2011) (trustee disclosure duty does not require informing beneficiaries of every aspect of administration 17)
In re Stephen M. Gunther Revocable Living Tr., 350 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (under UTC-style law, revocable-trust trustees owe no disclosure duty to beneficiaries before settlor’s death 18)
In re Tr. No. T-1 of Trimble, 826 N.W.2d 474 (Iowa 2013) (same rule under Iowa’s Uniform Trust Code 19)
Bissonnette v. Wylie, 162 Vt. 598 (Vt. 1994) (official comments can strongly indicate legislative intent 20)
Springfield Tchrs. Ass’n v. Springfield Sch. Dirs., 167 Vt. 180 (Vt. 1997) (omitted uniform-act language is presumed intentionally rejected 21)
In re Conservatorship of Abbott, 890 N.W.2d 469 (Neb. 2017) (incapacitated-settlor beneficiaries may seek trustee removal under UTC-style § 706 22)
Bevins v. King, 143 Vt. 252 (Vt. 1983) (amendments should be liberally allowed when justice requires 23)
PeakCM, LLC v. Mountainview Metal Sys., LLC, 2025 VT 50 (Vt. 2025) (failure to exercise discretion is an abuse of discretion 24)