Missouri Court of Appeals Rules Amendment Was Not Conditional

The settlor handwrote a document purporting to alter thedistributive provisions of his revocable lifetime trust to include hisstepchildren.  The writing, addressed to his children (who after his deathbecame co-trustees) and stepchildren was created in a car on the way to theairport and included a sentence telling the readers that if they “are readingthis” it means that settlor and his wife had died either on the way to theirdestination or on their way home.  The settlor survived the trip. Aftersettlor’s death, the stepchildren brought a declaratory judgment action seekingconfirmation of their status as beneficiaries. 

The trial court gave judgment for the co-trustees, holdingthat the introductory language was ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence onsettlor’s intent which showed that the language made the amendmentconditional. In Rouner v. Wise, No. WD 75305, 2013 WL 3880150 (Mo. Ct.App. July 30, 2013) the appellate court, reversed the trial court holding thatthe language was not ambiguous when examined as part of the entire writing andthus the amendment was not conditioned on the settlor dying on the trip.

Special thanks to William LaPiana (Professor of Law, New York Law School) for bringing this case to my attention.