McClure v. McClure
2016 MT 253
| Mont. | 2016Background
- This Montana Supreme Court case concerns the estate and trust of John S. McClure and the McClure Trust after his death in 2013.
- Ellie, Jack McClure's widow, challenged the amendment and sought to claim an interest in trust assets.
- Siblings (George, John W., and Verlayn McManus) opposed Ellie, contending the amendment was invalid and no interest existed.
- The District Court held the Survivor’s Trust never existed because the Decedent’s Trust was funded only up to the unified credit amount, rendering the amendment invalid.
- The Montana Supreme Court held the Trust is ambiguous and extrinsic evidence, including Trustee Instructions, is admissible; the Survivor’s Trust should have been funded and the amendment may be valid.
- The case is remanded to calculate trust assets and address the life estate in light of these conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trust Agreement is ambiguous and requires extrinsic evidence | Ellie contends the Agreement is ambiguous and extrinsic evidence should aid interpretation | Siblings contend the Agreement is unambiguous and extrinsic evidence is inapplicable | Ambiguous; extrinsic evidence admissible; Survivor’s Trust should be funded |
| Whether extrinsic documents (Trust Binder) should inform the trust’s meaning | Trust Binder supports Ellie’s view of funding Survivor’s Trust | Binder is extrinsic and should be ignored if the Agreement is clear | Extrinsic evidence admissible; documents support funding Survivor’s Trust |
| How to allocate assets between Decedent’s and Survivor’s Trusts after Dixie’s death and Jack’s actions | Survivor’s Trust should be funded with post-Dixie assets; Dixie’s death funded up to unified credit | Funding limited to the Decedent’s Trust per the plain terms | District Court erred; determine value at Dixie’s death and allocate post-Dixie assets to Survivor’s Trust; remand for calculation |
| Whether Siblings forfeited interests under no-contest provisions | No-contest provisions should apply to challenge to trust’s validity | Siblings’ actions to interpret the trust fall short of contesting its validity | No forfeiture; no-contest provisions not triggered by ordinary interpretation efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Snyder, 299 Mont. 421, 2 P.3d 238 (2000 MT) (trust interpretation and intent governs construction)
- Bair Family Trust, 343 Mont. 138, 183 P.3d 61 (2008 MT) (look to entire trust language and intent; avoid instrumental readings)
- Dern Family Trust, 279 Mont. 138, 928 P.2d 123 (1996 MT) (extrinsic evidence admissible to aid interpretation of a trust)
- Bolinger v. Estate of Bolinger, 284 Mont. 114, 943 P.2d 981 (1997 MT) (trust interpretation and semantic analysis in Montana)