Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 7740.5. Reformation to correct mistakes - UTC 415.
The court may reform the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform to the
settlor's probable intention if it is proved 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. The court may provide that the modification
have retroactive effect.
(July 15, 2024, P.L.786, No.64, eff. 90 days)
2024 Amendment. See section 11 of Act 64 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating
to Uniform Trust Code.
Cross References. Section 7740.5 is referred to in sections 7705, 7740 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Est. of Robert H. Agnew v. Ross, D., 152 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2017).
“13 In fact, it is likely that in an action to reform the Revocable Trust to reflect the provisions of the unexecuted 2010 Trust Amendment pursuant to Section 7740.”
In Re:Petition of Navarra, S. Appeal of:Navarra,C, 185 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“7 Before leaving this subject, we address another exceptional circumstance in which the legislature has required clear and convincing evidence: when a petitioner moves to reform a trust instrument to conform to the settlor's intent when the trust instrument "was affected by a…”
Est. & Trust of Edward E. Clawson (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 5× “We condense Appellant’s nine allegations of error into three: 1) whether the orphans’ court erred in failing to reform the Trust under the Uniform Trust Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 7740.5 (“UTC”) (Appellant’s Issues 1–6, 8); 2) whether the orphans’ court erred in failing to find that a…”
Est. of Frances M. Sorius (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Carrafiello has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, with references to relevant facts of record and to relevant case law.”
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.