Patterson v. Patterson
2011 UT 68
| Utah | 2011Background
- Darlene Patterson executed the 2006 Amendment to remove her son Ronald Patterson as a beneficiary of the Darlene Patterson Family Protection Trust, which was a revocable living trust created in 1999.
- The Trust provided that Darlene could amend or revoke the trust and that interests of beneficiaries were subject to divestment until the trust was revoked or terminated other than by death.
- Ron filed suit after Darlene’s death (eleven months after the Amendment) seeking to declare the Amendment void under Banks v. Means.
- The district court granted Ron partial summary judgment, holding the Amendment invalid based on Banks’ strict-compliance rule.
- Randy Patterson, the trustee, appealed arguing that the Utah Uniform Trust Code (UUTC) overruled Banks and permitted liberal amendment of revocable trusts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UUTC overrule Banks v. Means? | Randy argues UUTC overrules Banks. | Ron argues Banks remains controlling and UUTC does not overrule it. | Yes, UUTC overrules Banks. |
| Should the UUTC be considered despite not being raised below? | Randy argues controlling statute should be considered to decide the issue. | Ron contends preservation rules prevent considering new statute. | UUTC may be considered to resolve the case. |
| Whether the Amendment is valid under the UUTC §75-7-605? | Amendment valid because terms lack an exclusive method and amendment evidences intent. | Amendment would be invalid if Banks applied. | Yes, the Amendment is valid under §75-7-605. |
| Whether the trust terms provide an exclusive method of amendment? | Terms do not expressly limit amendment to a single method. | Unclear whether the method is exclusive; may require strict compliance. | The method is not expressly exclusive. |
| How should revocable-trusts be treated under the UUTC compared to Banks? | UUTC treats revocable trusts as will equivalents and allows liberal amendment. | Banks requires strict compliance with the trust terms for divesting interests. | UUTC governs; revocable trusts are treated with liberal amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Means, 52 P.3d 1190 (Utah 2002) (trust amendment requires complete revocation to divest vested interests under Banks)
- In re Estate of Flake, 71 P.3d 589 (Utah 2003) (distinguished Banks; amendment can modify rather than revoke to divest interests)
- Hoggan v. Hoggan, 169 P.3d 750 (Utah 2007) (upheld amendment reducing beneficiary's interest; distinguished Banks; supports liberal amendment)