Warne v. Warne
2012 UT 13
Utah2012Background
- In 2003 Ira B. Warne executed a Partial Revocation to remove Tom as a beneficiary and trustee, leaving Jeff as sole beneficiary.
- The district court invalidated the Partial Revocation under Banks v. Means (2002) and awarded Tom half of Ira's personal property under Ira's will.
- Jeff appealed arguing that Utah Uniform Trust Code (UUTC) §75-7-605 controls and overrules Banks, with retroactive application.
- Tom argued Banks controls and §605 does not apply retroactively, or that the court should not apply §605 retroactively.
- Ira died in 2007; Tom sued in 2008; the issue was whether §605 retroactively validates the Partial Revocation and whether Tom is entitled to personal property.
- The court ultimately held §605 retroactively applies and the Partial Revocation is valid, and that all personal property was in the Trust, not the will, at Ira's death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §75-7-605 retroactively apply and overrule Banks? | Tom argues Banks controls; §605 does not apply retroactively. | Jeff argues §605 controls and applies retroactively. | §605 retroactive; overrules Banks; Partial Revocation valid. |
| Does the Partial Revocation satisfy §75-7-605 requirements? | Tom contends the Partial Revocation fails under Banks. | Jeff contends the Partial Revocation satisfies §605's requirements. | Partial Revocation satisfies §605; terminates Tom's interest. |
| Is Tom entitled to one-half of Ira's personal property under Ira's will? | Tom claims entitlement under the will. | Jeff argues property is in the Trust, not the will. | No; all personal property was in the Trust at Ira's death. |
| Should the distribution of personal property be governed by the Trust rather than the will? | Tom seeks will-based distribution. | Jeff emphasizes Trust controls distributions. | Trust governs distribution; will not control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Means, 2002 UT 65 (Utah Supreme Court (2002)) (held that a mere amendment cannot divest a vested interest in a revocable trust)
- Flake v. Flake (In re Estate of Flake), 2003 UT 17 (Utah Supreme Court (2003)) (recognized that vesting language does not prevent termination where not fully divesting)
- Hoggan v. Hoggan, 2007 UT 78 (Utah Supreme Court (2007)) (affirmed ability to reduce a beneficiary's interest without complete divestment)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68 (Utah Supreme Court (2011)) (applied §75-7-605 to terminate vested interests under UUTC)