130.220 UTC
415. Reformation to correct mistakes.
The court may reform the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform the
terms to the settlor’s intention if the person requesting reformation proves by
clear and convincing evidence that both the settlor’s intent and the terms of
the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or
inducement. [2005 c.348 §35]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case:
Downs v. Binn, 562 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Downs v. Binn, 562 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “First, she asked the court to remove the credit shelter trust provisions and the irrevocability provision pursuant to ORS 130.220, so as “to correct mistakes made by the draftsman.”
Downs v. Binn, 562 P.3d 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “First, she asked the court to remove the credit shelter trust provisions and the irrevocability provision pursuant to ORS 130.220, so as “to correct mistakes made by the draftsman.”
Frakes v. Nay, 273 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “It further concluded that, if the trust otherwise provides for three distributions of money to respondent, then the trust is reformed pursuant to ORS 130.220, a provision of the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), and modified pursuant to ORS 130.”
Cotton v. Lansing, 344 Or. App. 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In Chad’s fourth assignment of error, he contends that the trial court should have “reformed the trust documents as requested by [Chad] * * * and [made] an equitable distribution to [Chad].”
Cotton v. Lansing, 344 Or. App. 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In Chad’s fourth assignment of error, he contends that the trial court should have “reformed the trust documents as requested by [Chad] * * * and [made] an equitable distribution to [Chad].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.