Hamel v. Hamel Examines the Interplay Between Broad and Specific Trust Provisions

The Kansas Supreme Court recently interpreted a trustinstrument where the broad powers granted to a trustee conflicted with aspecific trust provision.

Arthur L. Hamel gave his trustees broad power to control andadminister trust property, but included a specific provision in the trustinstrument concerning farmland held in the trust.  Based upon an appraisal by the trustees,Dennis Hamel was to have a three-year option to purchase the farmland followingArthur’s death.  Dennis agreed to buy thefarmland for $244,000 to be paid over six years.

Despite the broad powers granted to the trustees, the KansasSupreme Court “determined that the trustees lacked authority to sell the farmto Dennis under the terms of this contract for deed.”  Arthur clearly intended for the farmland tobe disposed of within three years. Therefore, the six-year contract violated the specific provision foundin the trust instrument.

See Luke Lantta, When the General Powers Granted to a TrusteeConflict with a Specific Trust Provision, Bryan Cave Fiduciary Litigation,May 10, 2013.