When Clear Language Still Gets It Wrong
Trust documents are drafted by humans, and humans make mistakes. A wrong account number, a misidentified beneficiary, a tax provision that contradicts the settlor's stated goals. Traditionally, courts were reluctant to rewrite trust language that seemed unambiguous. This statute changes that approach.
The court may reform the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor's 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.
A.R.S. § 14-10415The standard is clear and convincing evidence, which is higher than the typical preponderance standard used in most civil cases. The petitioner must show two things: that the settlor had a specific intention, and that a mistake of fact or law caused the trust language to miss the mark. The mistake can be in the expression itself, meaning the document says something the settlor did not mean, or in the inducement, meaning the settlor relied on incorrect information when making their decision.
Why This Matters for Families
Trust reformation can prevent outcomes nobody wanted. Consider a trust that directs assets to a charity that no longer exists, or one that includes a tax provision based on a law that has since changed. Without reformation, beneficiaries might be stuck with terms that defeat the very purpose the settlor had in mind.
This statute gives families a path to fix those problems through the court rather than living with the consequences of a drafting error. It is an important safety net, but it requires solid documentation. Letters, emails, meeting notes, and testimony from the attorney who drafted the trust can all serve as evidence of what the settlor actually intended.
