Soefje v. Jones, 270 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.).
Brother and Sister disputed the construction an amendment to Mother’s
trust. Brother argued that the amendment only added to the property to
which Sister was entitled under the original trust instrument but left
the property to which he was entitled intact. On the other hand,
Daughter claimed that the amendment revoked the entire property
distribution provided for in the original trust causing property
originally given to Brother to pass under the trust’s residuary clause
permitting her to share in that property. The trial court agreed with
Daughter and Brother appealed.
The appellate court reversed. The court began its analysis by
recognizing that a trust amendment does not revoke a provision of the
original trust “unless the words used in the amendment clearly show the
[settlor’s] intent to revoke the trust.” Soefje at 629. The court
studied the trust and the amendment and held as a matter of law that the
instruments are unambiguous. The amendment merely added to Sister’s
entitlement by giving her certain properties to which Brother was
originally entitled under the original trust. The amendment did not act
to revoke gifts of other property to Brother. The amendment expressly
stated that the new terms “shall be added” to the trust; there was no
language revoking other gifts not disposed of by the amendment.
Moral: Trust amendments need to be extremely clear to avoid later
disputes. Prudent practice may be to restate completely the dispositive
provisions rather than change them “bit-by-bit.”