Reforming a Trust to Fix Mistakes

When Clear Language Still Gets It Wrong

Trust documents are drafted by humans, and humans make mistakes. A wrong account number, a misidentified beneficiary, or a tax provision that contradicts the settlor's stated goals can all create problems. Traditionally, courts were reluctant to rewrite trust language that seemed clear. This statute changes that approach by allowing reformation when the written terms miss the mark.

The standard is clear and convincing evidence. That is higher than the typical 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 it can be in the inducement, meaning the settlor relied on incorrect information when making their decision.

How Reformation Differs from Other Trust Changes

Reformation is not the same as modifying a trust to meet new goals or changing terms because circumstances shifted. It is specifically about correcting errors in the original drafting. The court looks backward at what the settlor intended when the trust was created, not at what might be better going forward.

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. 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.