Mashler v. Mashler, 246 Ariz. 498

Decedent Lucille Sibley died in 2015; her 1986 Phil R. Sibley & Lucille F. Sibley Trust became irrevocable on the settlors' deaths.
Lucille's Will directed liquid assets to be distributed outright equally to her three children, but stated "it is my desire" that certain real property (the "Farmland") be "held in further trust" and not sold until her youngest great‑grandchild turns 21.
John (one child) was appointed personal representative and, with co‑trustee Christine, petitioned the superior court under A.R.S. § 14‑10819 to restate ("decant") the Trust; Ernest (another child) petitioned to partition the Farmland and objected to the restatement.
The superior court denied Ernest's partition petition and approved the trustees' restatement. Ernest appealed.
The court of appeals reviewed (1) whether precatory Will language created an enforceable trust over the Farmland, and (2) whether § 14‑10819 authorized the trustees to restate/decant the irrevocable Trust.

Issue	Ernest's Argument	John & Christine's Argument	Held
Whether precatory Will language ("it is my desire") created a trust over the Farmland	The phrase is merely precatory and non‑binding; thus Farmland was not required to be held in trust	The phrase, read with other Will provisions and directed to the personal representative, reflects dispositive intent to hold Farmland in trust	Court affirmed: language, when read with Will as a whole and directed to the PR, created an enforceable trust until youngest great‑grandchild is 21
Whether trustees could restate/"decant" the irrevocable Trust under A.R.S. § 14‑10819	Restatement invalid because trustees lacked discretionary authority to distribute to beneficiaries after settlor's death	§ 14‑10819 permits decanting where trustee has discretion; trustees argued they had sufficient authority tied to Will	Court vacated restatement: § 14‑10819 authorizes decanting only where the trust instrument expressly grants distributional discretion, which was absent here
Request for appellate attorneys' fees under A.R.S. § 14‑11004	N/A (Ernest opposed)	Trustees requested fees from the Trust and from Ernest personally	Court awarded reasonable fees on appeal to trustees to be paid by the Trust; denied award against Ernest personally

In re Hayward's Estate, 57 Ariz. 51 (1941) (distinguishes precatory words directed to devisees from those creating dispositive dispositions when directed to executor or law)
Newhall v. McGill, 69 Ariz. 259 (1949) (court may find a trust from precatory words only if intent to create an express trust is clear from the instrument as a whole)
In re Conness' Estate, 73 Ariz. 216 (1952) (example of precatory phrase that did not create a trust)
Ferri v. Powell‑Ferri, 72 N.E.3d 541 (Mass. 2017) (discusses decanting and that decanting statutes hinge on trustee discretionary distribution powers)
Morse v. Kraft, 992 N.E.2d 1021 (Mass. 2013) (describes decanting as appointment of trust property to a second trust with differing terms)