Sec. 112.054. JUDICIAL MODIFICATION, REFORMATION, OR TERMINATION OF TRUSTS. (a) On the petition of a trustee or a beneficiary, a court may order that the trustee be changed, that the terms of the trust be modified, that the trustee be directed or permitted to do acts that are not authorized or that are forbidden by the terms of the trust, that the trustee be prohibited from performing acts required by the terms of the trust, or that the trust be terminated in whole or in part, if:
(1) the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become illegal or impossible to fulfill;
(2) because of circumstances not known to or anticipated by the settlor, the order will further the purposes of the trust;
(3) modification of administrative, nondispositive terms of the trust is necessary or appropriate to prevent waste or impairment of the trust's administration;
(4) the order is necessary or appropriate to achieve the settlor's tax objectives or to qualify a distributee for governmental benefits and is not contrary to the settlor's intentions; or
(5) subject to Subsection (d):
(A) continuance of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose of the trust; or
(B) the order is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust.
(b) The court shall exercise its discretion to order a modification or termination under Subsection (a) or reformation under Subsection (b-1) in the manner that conforms as nearly as possible to the probable intention of the settlor. The court shall consider spendthrift provisions as a factor in making its decision whether to modify, terminate, or reform, but the court is not precluded from exercising its discretion to modify, terminate, or reform solely because the trust is a spendthrift trust.
(b-1) On the petition of a trustee or a beneficiary, a court may order that the terms of the trust be reformed if:
(1) reformation of administrative, nondispositive terms of the trust is necessary or appropriate to prevent waste or impairment of the trust's administration;
(2) reformation is necessary or appropriate to achieve the settlor's tax objectives or to qualify a distributee for governmental benefits and is not contrary to the settlor's intentions; or
(3) reformation is necessary to correct a scrivener's error in the governing document, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor's intent.
(c) The court may direct that an order described by Subsection (a)(4) has retroactive effect. The reformation of a trust under an order described by Subsection (b-1) is effective as of the creation of the trust.
(d) The court may not take the action permitted by Subsection (a)(5) unless all beneficiaries of the trust have consented to the order or are deemed to have consented to the order. A minor, incapacitated, unborn, or unascertained beneficiary is deemed to have consented if a person representing the beneficiary's interest under Section 115.013(c) has consented or if a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the beneficiary's interest under Section 115.014 consents on the beneficiary's behalf.
(e) An order described by Subsection (b-1)(3) may be issued only if the settlor's intent is established by clear and convincing evidence.
(f) Subsection (b-1) is not intended to state the exclusive basis for reformation of trusts, and the bases for reformation of trusts in equity or common law are not affected by this section.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3332, ch. 567, art. 2, Sec. 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. May 24, 1985.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 148 (H.B. 1190), Sec. 7, eff. January 1, 2006.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 62 (S.B. 617), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 62 (S.B. 617), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1112 (H.B. 2245), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
in Re Willa Peters Hubberd Testamentary Trust, 432 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “MediatoR’s Standing to File Petition In her first issue on appeal, Dahl-man contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order the modifications to the trust because the mediator lacked standing to file the petition. 6 Dahlman relies on section 112.”
Di Portanova v. Monroe, 402 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “See Tex. PROP. Code Ann. § 112.054 (a)(3). Finally, the consolidation of trusts reduced the total number of trustees from 10 to three, which is the number required by the Cullens’ wills for the New Louisiana Trust.”
Conte v. Ditta, 312 S.W.3d 951 (Tex. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Laws 676 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. PROP. Code Ann. § 112.054 (a)(2) (Vernon 2007)).”
Alpert v. Riley, 274 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. 2009).
“Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 112.054(a) (Vernon 2007).”
Bank of Texas, NA, Tr. v. Mexia, 135 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App. 2004).
“054 of the Texas Trust Code, see Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 112.054 (Vernon 1995), not the “best interest” of the ward.”
Soefje v. Jones, 270 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App. 2008).
“149, § 1 (current version at Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 112.054(a)(1) (Vernon 2007)); see Frost Nat’l Bank v.”
McAnally v. Friends of WCC, Inc., 113 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App. 2003).
“022 required that both the cemetery and the funds held by Trustees for the maintenance of the cemetery should be transferred to Friends. Under its express trust theory, Friends alternatively sought an amendment of the trust naming it as trustee of the funds donated for cemetery…”
Wils v. Robinson, 934 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 112.054(a)(1) & (2) (Vernon 1995).”
Gregory v. MBank Corpus Christi, N.A., 716 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “All of the beneficiaries were in favor of the distribution. By his first point, Gregory argues that the trial court erred in entering a declaratory judgment because there was no actual controversy among the parties.”
Fisher v. Miocene Oil & Gas Ltd., 335 F. App'x 483 (5th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code § 112.054(a). If the subject private trust were a charitable trust, "there [would be] greater occasion for the exercise of the power of the court to permit or direct a deviation from the terms of the trust because of the cy pres doctrine, .”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(a) — 11 cases
Alpert v. Riley, 274 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. 2009).
“Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 112.054(a) (Vernon 2007).”
in Re Willa Peters Hubberd Testamentary Trust, 432 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. 2014).
“MediatoR’s Standing to File Petition In her first issue on appeal, Dahl-man contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order the modifications to the trust because the mediator lacked standing to file the petition. 6 Dahlman relies on section 112.”
Fisher v. Miocene Oil & Gas Ltd., 335 F. App'x 483 (5th Cir. 2009).
“Tex. Prop.Code § 112.054(a). If the subject private trust were a charitable trust, "there [would be] greater occasion for the exercise of the power of the court to permit or direct a deviation from the terms of the trust because of the cy pres doctrine, .”
Gregory v. MBank Corpus Christi, N.A., 716 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. App. 1986).
“All of the beneficiaries were in favor of the distribution. By his first point, Gregory argues that the trial court erred in entering a declaratory judgment because there was no actual controversy among the parties.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(a)(1) — 5 cases
Soefje v. Jones, 270 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App. 2008).
“149, § 1 (current version at Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 112.054(a)(1) (Vernon 2007)); see Frost Nat’l Bank v.”
Wils v. Robinson, 934 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. App. 1996).
“Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 112.054(a)(1) & (2) (Vernon 1995).”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(a)(2) — 3 cases
Di Portanova v. Monroe, 402 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App. 2012).
“See Tex. PROP. Code Ann. § 112.054 (a)(3). Finally, the consolidation of trusts reduced the total number of trustees from 10 to three, which is the number required by the Cullens’ wills for the New Louisiana Trust.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(a)(3) — 2 cases
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(b) — 7 cases
in Re Willa Peters Hubberd Testamentary Trust, 432 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. 2014).
“MediatoR’s Standing to File Petition In her first issue on appeal, Dahl-man contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order the modifications to the trust because the mediator lacked standing to file the petition. 6 Dahlman relies on section 112.”
Conte v. Ditta, 312 S.W.3d 951 (Tex. App. 2010).
“Laws 676 (amended 2005) (current version at Tex. PROP. Code Ann. § 112.054 (a)(2) (Vernon 2007)).”
Di Portanova v. Monroe, 402 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App. 2012).
“See Tex. PROP. Code Ann. § 112.054 (a)(3). Finally, the consolidation of trusts reduced the total number of trustees from 10 to three, which is the number required by the Cullens’ wills for the New Louisiana Trust.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(c) — 1 case
Fisher v. Miocene Oil & Gas Ltd., 335 F. App'x 483 (5th Cir. 2009).
“Tex. Prop.Code § 112.054(a). If the subject private trust were a charitable trust, "there [would be] greater occasion for the exercise of the power of the court to permit or direct a deviation from the terms of the trust because of the cy pres doctrine, .”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 112.054(d) — 2 cases
in Re Willa Peters Hubberd Testamentary Trust, 432 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App. 2014).
“MediatoR’s Standing to File Petition In her first issue on appeal, Dahl-man contends the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order the modifications to the trust because the mediator lacked standing to file the petition. 6 Dahlman relies on section 112.”
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.