...Beck, Jr., Buford, for appellant. Alston & Bird, Nowell D. Berreth, Jay D. Bennett, Atlanta; Andersen, Davidson & Tate, Ethel D. Andersen, Lawrenceville, for appellee. HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice. This case involves the equitable modification of a trust pursuant to OCGA § 53-12-153. The trust in issue is the J.D. Smith Irrevocable Trust created in 1990 by John Dewey Smith ("Settlor"). As OCGA § 53-12-153 mandates, modification is warranted only where it is established by clear and convincing evidence that, "owing to circumstances not known to or anticipated by the *849 settlor, compliance would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the purposes of the trust." Id....

...fenses in connection with the attack. However, those charges remain pending and issues regarding appellant's competency to stand trial on those charges have not been resolved. In May 2005 appellee filed a petition to amend the Trust pursuant to OCGA § 53-12-153 in order to "forego any distributions of Trust property to" appellant....

...nce at all to establish that appellant's attack was motivated by his greed for the Trust receipts rather than as the result of the alleged paranoid delusions that had justified the trial court's appointment of a guardian ad litem for appellant. OCGA § 53-12-153 "gives courts equitable powers of modification in extraordinary circumstances to change administrative or other terms, but only when the intent of the settlor would be defeated by circumstances unanticipated or unknown at the time of the trust's establishment." Friedman v....

...rt's conclusion that this attack was a circumstance unanticipated by Settlor, inasmuch as it is uncontroverted that appellant was only seven years old at the time the Trust was created. However, the unknown or unanticipated event requirement in OCGA § 53-12-153 is only part of the equation....

...r's descendants as having predeceased him, it removes that descendant from among those entitled to receive Trust proceeds. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that removal of a beneficiary in this manner is a proper subject of modification under OCGA § 53-12-153, [2] there is no clear and convincing evidence that it would "defeat or substantially impair" the purpose of the Trust for appellant to receive Trust funds....

..."[T]he most important issue for the trial court is whether the denial of the modification will impair the purpose of the trust." (Footnote omitted.) Friedman, supra, 268 Ga. at 722(1), 492 S.E.2d 885. Because the record does not contain the clear and convincing evidence required by OCGA § 53-12-153 to establish that it would defeat or substantially impair the purpose of the Trust for appellant (should he survive Inez Smith) to receive his share of the Trust funds, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering equitable modification of the trust at issue....

...on). Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except CARLEY, P.J., who dissents. *851 CARLEY, Presiding Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent to the majority's reversal of the judgment of the trial court modifying the trust pursuant to OCGA § 53-12-153....

...ary based on alleged instances of misconduct. However, unlike the traditional rule in most states precluding any deviation from the distributive provisions of a trust, the Georgia statute "is not ... limited to administrative terms." Comment to OCGA § 53-12-153....

...2172, research has failed to uncover a single case in which a trust was modified so as to exclude a beneficiary based on the beneficiary's criminal conduct towards others. Because of the evidentiary flaws in this case, however, we need not resolve the question whether the power to modify granted the courts by OCGA § 53-12-153 extends to altering the dispositive provisions of trusts by removing beneficiaries in this manner....

...FLETCHER, Presiding Justice. At issue in this case is a court's equitable power to modify a trust. Appellants are trustees of a trust and appellees are the settlors and beneficiaries of the trust. All parties sought a modification of the trust under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-153 based on an unanticipated change of circumstances....

...An estate and tax planning lawyer testified that, if the trust is unable to distribute the proceeds to the spray trusts until Monica's death, the trust would suffer serious tax consequences and that this could not logically have been intended by the settlors. 1. O.C.G.A. § 53-12-153 allows a court to modify the terms of a trust if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that, owing to circumstances not known to or anticipated by the settlors, compliance would substantially impair the purposes of the trust....

...[2] This power was recognized, but not frequently utilized, in the common law. See Bedgood v. Thomas, 220 Ga. 262, 138 S.E.2d 313 (1964) (noting that court of equity "may under certain circumstances modify the terms of a trust"). [3] See In re Wolcott, 95 N.H. 23, 56 A.2d 641 (1948), cited in comment to O.C.G.A. § 53-12-153; see also George G....

...ds be divided equally among the beneficiaries, or the sale proceeds be used to buy a smaller house and the remaining proceeds be used for ongoing expenses. Appellant Michael Eugene Martin, one of the beneficiaries and decedent's son, objected. "OCGA § 53-12-153 allows a court to modify the terms of a trust if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that, owing to circumstances not known to or anticipated by the settlors, compliance would substantially impair the purposes of the trust." Friedman v. Teplis, 268 Ga. 721(1), 492 S.E.2d 885 (1997). The trial court held it was not authorized under OCGA § 53-12-153 to modify or terminate the trust based on the depletion of the bank account since the decedent knew the account was depleted before his death....