### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 19

– 0155
Filed November 8 , 20 19

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COE COLLEGE FOR INTERPRETATION OF PURPORTED GIFT RESTRICTION , COE COLLEGE, Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover

Grinde, Judge.

A college appeals a district court judgment denying its request for declaratory relief as to the terms of a 1976 charitable gift. AFFIRMED.

Gary J. Streit, Megan R. Merritt, and Teresa K. Baumann of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids , for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Chantelle Smith, Assistant Attorney General , for appellee.2

MANSFIELD , Justice.
I. Introduction. How perman ent is a “ permanent home” ? T his case concerns seven works painted by one of Iowa’s best

- known artist s

— Grant Wood. In 1976, a foundation donated the paintings to Coe College in Ce dar Rapids. The gift letter stated that the paintings would be given to the college “and that this would be their permanent home , hanging on the walls of Stewart Memorial Library.” For years, the college treated the paintings on its books as an unrestricted gift that could be sold or otherwise alienated . But in 2016 , an auditor determined the paintings should be treated as a restricte d gift.
This had a n adverse impact on the college’s endowment fund and led the college to file a petition seeking a judicial interpretation of the gift’s terms. Following a hearing on a stipulated record, the district court ruled that
there indeed exists a restriction on the alienability of the paintings . The
court also ruled that neither Iowa Code section 540A.106 , part of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMI FA) , nor the common law doctrine of cy pres , codified at Iowa Code

sect ion 633A.5102, applied; accordingly, the court declined to modify the
restriction

. The college appeals. It argues that the 1976 gift was unrestricted,
but if this court finds it to be restricted, we should modify or discard the
restrictions. We conclude that the language in the gift letter did restrict the gift . We conclude that the UPMIFA does not apply because these are
not “funds” but are instead “program

- related assets

. ” Lastly, we find it is premature to consider the application of cy pres because the re is no showing the gift restrictions can not be carried out at present.3

II. Facts and Procedural History. In 1932, hotel magnate Eugene C. Eppley commissioned renowned
artist Gran t Wood to paint a mural in the Hotel Montrose in Cedar Rapids

. The mural became known as “ The Fruits of Iowa

. ” When the Hotel
Montrose was sold in 1957 , some fifteen years after Wood’s death , Eppley
had the mural taken down and separated into seven separate panels. He loaned the p aintings to Coe College, a private liberal arts college in Cedar Rapids. The loan was to last indefinitely , with the understanding that the

p aintings could be taken back at any time after one year pas sed

. The

p aintings remained on display at Coe College for nearly twenty years. At some point in time, the ownership of the p aintings moved from Eppley personally to the Eppley Foundation, a charitable institution whose purposes included to promote the we ll

- being of mankind and to assist the needy and unfortunate, by religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational activities; and for such purposes to make grants, donations, and contributions to corporations . . . organized and operated exclusive ly for religious, charitable, scientific, li terary or educational purposes. In 1976, while winding up its affairs, the Eppley Foundation terminated the previous loan arrangement and donated the paintings to Coe College. The Eppley Foundation’s gift letter stated, The Eppley Foundation Board of Directors [has] approved that the Grant Wood paintings be given to the Coe College and that this would be their permanent home, hanging on the walls of Stewart Memorial Library. A Plaque to be installed, per attached proposal, was discussed with you when you were here, with a piece of marble and attaching the bust and the letters to the marble, including the two bronze plaques which were outlined on the sketches. We are again enclosing a picture of how this pl aque will look like when it is completed but it will be done in bronze instead of aluminum.4 Mr. Christian gave you the name of the Company in Omah a that made this plaque, The J. P. Cooke Co., 1311 Howard Street, Omaha, Nebraska, 68102. Before this plaque i s install ed, we want to approve the full[

- ] scale drawing. Please return the picture of the plaque and also the sketch which is attached when you are through with same. The plaque st ates in relevant part, “In [Eppley’s] memory, the Grant Wood Paintings the Fruits of Iowa were given to Coe College by the Eugene C. Eppley Foundation Inc .” It includes a bust of Eppley and an inscription with the years he lived . It further state s that Eppley’s “great wealth” was “to be distributed for the benefit of youth and for the lasting good of
mankind.” The p aintings have remained under the ownership of Coe College
since then and are among several Grant Wood pieces on display in the Perrine Gallery at Stewart Memorial Library. Coe College occasionally
lends them to othe r institutions for temporary exhibition purposes and to raise funds for the maintenance of the paintings

. In 1977, the Eppley Foundation was dissolved by the Nebraska Secretary of State for nonpayment of biennial fees, and nothing has been
filed since then to revive the Eppley Foundation.
From 1976 until 2016, Coe College accounted for the p aintings as unrestricted assets. In 2016 , however, as part of a routine annual audit , the college’s auditors determined this previous classification had been a mistake and reclassified the p aintings as permanently restricted net
assets . This matters to Coe College bec ause the classification of the

p aintings affects the value of Coe College’s endowment fund. Coe College

t urned to the courts for assistance

. On February 5, 2018, Coe College filed a petition seeking an interpretation of the Eppley Foundation’s gift as unrestricted . If5

necessary, the petition also sought a lifting of any restriction s accompanying the gift

. Coe College argued that the reference to a “permanent home” in the 1976 gift letter was meant to contrast with the prior situation where the paintings had been on loan and thus only on temporary display

— and not to serve as a bar to the college selling or otherwise disposing of the paintings. Al ternatively, Coe College as ked the
court to remove the restrictions.
Since the Eppley Foundation was no long er in existence, Coe College arranged for the attorney general to be served with the petition. P ursuant to Iowa Code sections 540A.106 and 633A.510 8 , he participated in the district court proceedings, resisting Coe College’s petition in each respect

. Following briefing and a hearing on a stipulated record , the district court issued its ruling on January 2, 2019 . It held that “the Eppley
Foundation’s intent expressed in the February 16, 1976 Gift Letter transferring the Paintings to Coe College was to place a permanent restriction on alienation of the Paintings. ” The court further found that
“t he permanen t restriction on alienation [did] not merit ap plication of Iowa
Code section 540A.106 or the doctrine of cy pres, under Iowa Code
section 633A.5102, releasing Coe from said restriction.” Coe College appealed, and we retained the appeal.
III. Standard of Review. The parties dis agree whether this declaratory action is equitable or legal in nature. “Our review of an appeal from a declaratory judgment action is determined by how the case was tried in district court.” Clarke
C ty. Reservoir Comm’n v. Robins Revocable Tr. , 862 N.W.2d 166, 171 (Iowa
20 15). Although the attorney general points out that the college filed this case as a law action, an action tried wholly in equity will be subject to a
de novo standard of review even if it was filed at law. See Passehl Estate6

v. Passehl , 712 N.W.2d 408, 4 13

– 14 (Iowa 200 6). Here , the court did not rule on evidentiary objections; indeed, the court did not need to because the case was tried on a stipulated record. By contrast, in Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. , we review ed at law a determinatio n that a charitable subscription was binding, where the matter was tried at law

— i.e., objections were made and ruled on . 221 N.W.2d 609, 609

– 11 (Iowa
1974 ) (en banc)

. In addition, t he relief sought by the parties here was equitable

— neither party sought damages or a declaration tha t damage s were not due. Cy pres is an equitable doctr ine, so in deciding whether it applies, our
review is de novo. Kolb v. City of Storm Lake , 736 N.W.2d 546, 552

– 53 (Iowa 2007). Lastly, the record consists of stipulated fac ts in any event. For all these reasons, we apply a de novo standard of review here.
IV. Analysis.
A. Is There a Restriction on Alienation of the Paintings? In Iowa, [a] donor of property for a charitable use may impose such conditions as he may choose, including a restraint on alienation. This right is an exception to the prohibition against restraint on alienation.

. . . .

“ When the charitable use is created by gift, the donor may impose conditions and limitations which shall prevent the diversion of the trust estate from the uses upon which the estate was granted, either by the voluntary or involuntary act of the done e
. . . . The question is wholly one of constructio n. ” Sisters of Mercy of Cedar Rapids v. Lightner , 223 Iowa 1049, 1060

– 61, 274 N.W. 86, 92

– 93 (1937) (quoting Mills v. Davison , 35 A. 1072, 107 4 (N.J.
1896 ))

. For example, almost a century ago we considered another case involving both Coe College and putati ve gift restrictions. See generally7 Lupton v. Leand e r Clark Coll. , 194 Iowa 1008, 187 N.W. 496 (1922). Leander Clark gave $50,000 to what was then Western Colle ge in Tama, requiring that (1) the donation be matched by another $100,000 in gifts, (2) the name of the college be changed to Leander Clark College, and (3) the whole $150,000 “shall constitute a permanent endowment fund , the principal of which shall be protected and forever held sacred as such, and no part of it shall ever on any pretense, or in any emergency, be pledged or hypothecated for any purpose

. . . . ” Id. at 1010

– 11, 187 N.W. at 497

– 98. Years later, Leander Clark College was no longer able to support itself as an independent educational instit ution and agreed to merge with and
transfe r the endowment fund to Coe College. Id. at 1012, 187 N.W. at 498.
A lawsuit followed. Id.
We reasoned as follows: It is to be observed that the written proposal, in which the terms and conditions of the donation were fully stated, contains no provisio n for a forfeiture or reversion of the fund to his estate, nor does it provide for any other disposition thereof , in the event Leander Clark College should cease to exist and function as an institution of learning. Gifts of the character in question for the promotion of education come within the acknowledged definition of gifts to charity, and the first important question in dealing therewith is to ascertain the true intention of the donor. This intention must be fo und from the instrument itself, and the facts and circumstances surrounding its execution and the making of the gift.
Id. at 1013

– 14, 187 N.W. at 498

– 99. Ultimately , we ruled that the endowment belonged to Coe College, concluding that the provision of Lea nder Clark that the college should bear his name was a mere incident to a br oader and more generous purpose : that of assisting to found and perpetuate a fund , to be so invested and managed as to yield an annual income , to be used for the better education o f young men and women who might desire to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the maintenance of such an institution as the college in question.8

Id. at 1016, 187 N.W. at 500. We specifically noted the absence of any
forfeiture or rever sion provis ion in the original gift. Id. at 1013

– 18, 187
N.W. at 498

– 500. Somewhat analogously, Coe College argues now that the “permanent home” language does not restrict the college’s outright ownership of the paintings. “Permanent” in its view contrasts with “temporary.” The paintings were being given to the college permanently

. Coe College notes
the Eppley Foundation was a sophisticated entity that drafted the gift letter
itself. It points out that no trust was establ ished, no funds were provided

to the college to maintain and preserve the paintings, no inali enability language was included in the gift letter, and the letter made no provision
for reversion or other disposition of the paintings if they ceased to be hung
in the St ewart Memorial Library. Also noteworthy, perhaps, is that for forty years the paintings were carried on the college’s books as an unrestricted gift. In addition, according to the college, the Eppley Foundation’s mission was to support charities through grants and donations, not to disseminate art. On the other hand, the attorney general emphasizes that the same sentence in the letter that gave the paintings to Coe College said “that this would be their permanent home, hanging on the walls of Stew art Memorial Library.” Also, the letter provided detailed specifications for a marble and bronze plaque to accompany the gift of the paintings , which included a bust of Eppley

. Although the paintings have occasionally been loaned to other institutions and their precise display location has changed, they remain hanging today in the Stewart Memorial Library with the original plaque.
Ours is not the first case dealing with gift re strictions on art. In Museum of Fine Arts v. Beland , a will had bequeathed several paintings to9 a charitable trust, with ownership to “be vested permanently and inalienably” therein. 735 N.E.2d 1248, 1250 (Mass. 2000). The will also
directed the trustee s to offer the paintings “for purposes of exhibition to the Museum of Fine Arts in the City of Boston,” where in fact some were displayed and some were kept in storage. Id. Years later, the trust sought to sell some of the paintings that were being store d. Id. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that no such author ity
existed:
An effort to determine Wolcott’ s intent by extrinsic evidence is unnecessary because the provisions of the bequest are not ambiguous. Paragraph 5 of the bequest states: “The ownership and control of the pictures shall be vested permanently and inalienably . . . in [the] Trustees.” The judge correctly interpreted the meaning of the words in this paragraph by the application of commonly accepted r ules. Contrary to the trustees’ assertions, the judge did not “overlook” a secondary meaning of the term “inalienable.” The contention that Wolcott must have intended the word “inalienable” to be used in the bequest the same way as the word had been used in the Declaration of Independence is not persuasive. The judge properly concluded that “the phrase ‘permanently and inalienably’ in the will means exactly what it says

— the Trustees are to have permanent possession and control of the paintings” (emphasis original). The beques t makes clear that the paintings may not be sold by the trustees.
Id. at 1251 (footnote omitted) ( citations omitted)

. Although Coe College distinguishes the Beland case on the ground that the bequest there used the term “inalienably,” the larger point is that the Massachusetts court applied some “commonly accepted rules” of interpretation to the words used when the gift was made

. A more recent unpublished Massachusetts trial court case involved
the famed artist Norman Rockwell. Rockwell v. Trs. of the Berkshire
Museum , No. 1776CV00253, 2017 WL 6940932 (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 7, 2017). In that case , an injunction was sought barring the Berkshire10 Museum from selling any of its collection of Rockwell paintings. Id. at *1.
The court denied relief

. Id. at *19. In part, it reasoned as follows: In 1958 and again in 1966, Norman Rockwell gave certain paintings to the Museum without declaring any trust. Shortly after Rockwell donated the first painting, he received a letter from Stuart Henry, the Museum ’ s director, accepting the paintings and stating that the y were to be part of the Museum’ s “permanent collection.” The Museum has attached affidavits, which the Attorney General has not contradicted, stating that “permanent collection” is and has lo ng been museum parlance for objects accessioned by the museum and implies no actual permanency. These affidavits persuade the court that the phrase “permanent collection” should be accorded this specialized meaning, which would have been well

- known by Roc kwell and second nature to Henry. Accordingly, Henry’ s letter does not support the existence of a contemporary declaration by Rockwell that the paintings were to stay with the museum forever. As the parties generally acknowledge, deaccession of artwork wa s not commonplace at the time of either of Rockwell’ s gifts. To the extent that may bear on the terms of a purported trust, it gives the court little reason to believe that, by gifting his paintings to the Museum without any express restriction, Rockwell nonetheless restricted the Museum from deaccessioning his work. If deaccessioning was so unheard of that Rockwell would not have though t to have restricted the Museum’ s right to deaccession his artwork, it suggests he did not restrict the Museum’ s rights in that fashion. O n the other hand, if Rockwell and the Museum generally understood the possibil ity of deaccessioning, Rockwell’ s failure to expressly restrict the Museum from doing so suggests that restricting the gifts was not his intent.

Id. at *15 (fo otnotes omitted) (citation omitted) . Arguably, the Rockwell case supports Coe College’s view that “permanent” does not mean “inalienable.” However, the relevant language there was “permanent collection,” not “permanent home,” and we have to read words in their
entire context. A New York trial court opinion also sheds light on how the terms and conditions of art donations are interpreted. In Dennis v. Buffalo Fine11

Arts Academy , a museum sought to “deaccession” ( or, in common parlance , “ sell ” ) certain older works of art to “ focus on maintaining a world

renowned modern and contemporary art museum .” No. 2007

– 2220, 2007
WL 840996 , at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 21, 2007). In rejecting a court challenge to this plan, the court found , in part, The Board is emp owered . . . to sel l property which was donated or bequeathed to the corporation. This po wer is limited by an individual’ s right to specifically restrict the alienability of an item which he or she donates. Both Mr. Foreman and Mr. Michael ’ s dona tions do not restrict the Board’ s right to sell these items. First, there is no evidence produced by petitioners that Mr. Foreman himself (i.e., not his family), specifically limited the purpose for which the Shiva was given. Second, the will of Mr. Michael cont ains no express provision limiting the rights of the Academy to sell his donations. This court agrees with a determination by the Attorney General ’ s office, that the will needed to contain an explicit perpetual limit on the right to sell the item in order for the Board to have violated the donor ’ s intent.
Id. at *4. Although the court d id not restate the precise language that the two donations involved, it did speak in terms of a “specific[] limit” or “an explicit perpetual limit” on resale. I d. Potentially, that analysis favors the college’s position here.
In Lord v. Society for the Preservation of New England of Antiquities,
Inc. , the Maine Supreme Judicial Court confronted a will that bequeathed a painting to the Society “for use only in the ‘Parson Smith House.’ ” 639 A.2d 623, 623 (Me. 1994). Some years later, the Society sold the house and moved the painting to one of its other historic sites. Id. at 624. The Maine court ruled for the Society, reasoning, The Lords argue that the failure to construe the phrase “for use only in the Parson Smith House” as a condition results in an unacceptable interpretation of it as surplusage. While we recognize that the phrase “for use only in the Parson Smith House” demonstrates Mrs. Stephan’ s st rong preference that “the Phyllis” remain in the Parson Smith House, we cannot say it is sufficient to create a legal obligation that it remain in the Parson Smith House

.12

Id. at 625.
T he Restatement (Third) of Property addresses the subject of gift restrictions and donative intent. It provides , “ The controlling consideration in determining the meaning of a donative document is the
donor’ s intention. The donor ’ s intention is given effect to the maximum
extent allowed by law. ” Restatement (Third) of Prop

. : Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 10.1 , at 276 ( Am. Law Inst. 2003). The Restatement adds, “ In seeking to determine the donor’ s intention, all relevant evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, may be considered, including the text of
the donative document and relevant extrinsic evidence. ” Id. § 10.2 , at 278

. “The text of a don ative document must be read in its entirety.” Id. cmt. b , at 278

. “Extrinsic evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution
of the donative docume nt that might bear on the donor’ s intention, directly or circumstantially, may always be considered.” Id. cmt. d , at 279

– 80

. Furthermore, “ [a] significant element of the surrounding circumstances may be whether the drafter of the docum ent was a layperson (usually the donor) or a person experienced in the use of legal or other specialized terminology (usually the donor ’ s lawyer). ” Id. cmt. e , at 280

. A lthough we have not previously approved these portions of the Restatement (Third) of P roperty, we have applied that Restatement in other

contexts. See, e.g. , DuTrac Cmty. Credit Union v. Radiology Grp

. Real Estate, L.C. , 891 N.W.2d 210, 218

– 2 0 (Iowa 2017) ( applying Restatement (Third) of Property : Servitudes § 7.10 (Am. Law. Inst. 2000) ) ; Stew

Mc Development, Inc. v. Fischer , 770 N.W.2d 839, 847 (Iowa 2009) ( applying Restatement (Third) of Property : Servitudes § 4.1(1) ) ; Gray v.
Osborn , 739 N.W.2d 855, 861 (Iowa 2007) ( applying Restatement (Third) of Prop erty : Servitudes § 2.2 ) ; Sieh v. Sieh , 713 N.W.2d 194, 197

– 98 (Iowa13 2006) ( applying Restatement (Third) of Property : Wills & Other Donative
Transfers § 9.1(c)) , superseded by statute , 2009 Iowa Acts ch. 52, § 4 (codified at Iowa Code § 633.238 ( Supp. 2009)), as recognized in In re
Estate of Myers , 825 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2012) . Consistent with the Restatement provisions and official comments quoted above, we believe a heightened emphasis on intent is appropriate when interpreting a gift as opposed to a contract or statute. A gift is the pr oduct of one actor’s intent,

not two actors as with a contract or many actors as with a statute.
Our casel aw appears to have followed the Restatement approach.
“It is a well recognized rule, uniformly followed by all courts that gifts to charitable uses and purposes are highly favored in law, and will be most liberally construed to make effectual the intended purpose of the donor.”
In re Small’s Estate , 244 Iowa 1209, 1225, 5 8 N.W.2d 477, 485 ( 1953). In general, the donor’ s intention is to be determined from the instrument itself and the attendant circumstances. The terms used are not to be measured separately, but each is to be considered in its relation to the entire prov ision, and the general meaning of each restricted by its associations, and made subordinate to [its] main purpose

. . . . To aid in the construction, extrinsic evidence of the circumstances is usually admissible [.]
Id. at 1228, 58 N.W.2d at 486 (quoting 14 C.J.S. Charities § 11). Applying those principles here, on our de novo review, we find th at the Eppley Foundation made a gift subject to the restriction that the paintings would remain permanently in the Coe College library. 1 T o this

1 The district court found no barrier to temporary loans of the paintings to other educational or charitable inst itutions: Temporarily removing the Paintings from the Stewart Memorial Library and loaning out the Paintings to other educational or charitable institutions is not contrary to the donor’s intent. This interpretation both allows Coe the opportunity to gene rate income for the maintenance of the Paintings and further its educational mission and is consistent with the stated purposes of both the Eppley Foundation and Coe.14

court , t he words “per manent home” mean not merely that the paintings would belong permanently to Coe College but that they would be housed there permanently. A critical factor is that the same letter gifting the paintings also described in detail how Eppley would be recognized along with the paintings. Thus, the Eppley Foundation directed that there would
be a marble and bronze plaque memorial including two bronze plat es and a bust of Eppley. Four paragraphs in the Eppley Foundation’s 1976 gift
letter were devoted t o the Eppley memorial, only one to the paintings.
The me morial envisioned by the Eppley Foundation in 1976 remains there today. It prominently hono rs Eppley himself while explaining that the paintings are a gift to Coe College. We think it is fair to infer that the donor intended a symbiotic relationship between the two

— the paintings and the commemoration of Eppley. Such a relationship depend s on the paintings remaining at Coe College. The effort to honor Eppley would

cease to have the same significance without the presence of the Grant
Wood artwork. 2
B. Should Any Restriction Be Modified or Removed Under Iowa
Code Section 540A.106 or 633A.5102?
1. The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act. Our general assembly enacted the Uniform Prudent Management of

The Gift Letter and surrounding circumstances present no evidence that the Paintings were to be a financial burden on Coe. Nor is there any evidence that the Eppley Foundation intended that the Paintings were only to be used as library decorations. If the Eppley Foundation intended that the Paintings remain in the library forever, for all ti me, never to be removed, it could have said as much. No issue is raised on appeal as to this portion of the district court’s order.

2 As the district court put it, “ The memorial plaque commemorating the gift of the Paintings would be useless without the subject paintings present and the text would be nonsense in a location other than Coe on account of the language ‘given to Coe College by the Eugene C. Eppley Foundation.’ ”15 Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) in 2008. See generally 2008 Iowa Acts
ch. 1066 (codified at Iowa Code ch. 540A (2009) ). This is the first time this court has been asked to interpret any part of the UPMI FA. The UPMIFA provides three options to release or modify restrictions on management, investment, or purpose of trusts. Iowa Code § 540A.106 (2017)

. Option

one is donor consent. Id. § 540A.106(1). It i s inapplicable here because
the Nebraska Secretary of State dissolved the Eppley Foundation in 1977 ; hence, the donor no longer exists

. We turn therefore to options two and
three. Option two states, The court, upon application of an institution, may modify a restriction contained in a gift instrument regarding the management or investment of an institutional fund if the restriction has become impracticable or if, because of circumstances not anticipated by the donor, the restriction will defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the purposes of the institutional fund. The institution shall notify the attorney general of the application, and the attorney general shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Any modification must be made in accordance with the donor’s probable in tention.
Id. § 540A.106(2) . Option three provides, If a particular charitable purpose or a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the use of an institutional fund becomes unlawful, impracticable, or impossible to fulfill, the court, upon applicatio n of an institution, may modify the purpose of the fund or the restriction on the use of the fund in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument. The institution shall notify the attorney general of the application an d the attorney general shall be giv en the opportunity to be heard.

Id. § 540A.106(3)

. 3

3 The common law doctrine of cy pres is mentioned in a separate subsection of the U PMIFA: This section does not limit the application of the judicial power of cy pres or the right of an institution to modify a restriction on the management,16 As the foregoing language indicates, options two and three are available for “institutional funds.” An “i nstitutional fund” is defined as “a fund held by an institution exclusively for charitable p urposes,” and does not include “[p] rogram

- related assets, ” “ fund [ s ] held for an institution by a trustee that is not an institution, ” or “ fund [ s ] in which a beneficiary that is not an institution has an interest, other than an interest that could arise upon violation or failure of the purposes of the fund. ” Id. § 540A.102(5). A “program

- related asset , ” on the other hand, is “an asset held by an institution primarily to accomplish a charitable purpose of the institution
and not primarily for investment.” Id. § 540A.102(7). The attorney general argues that the paintings are program

- related assets, not an institutional fund. He quotes the following article from the
website of the Uniform Law Commission: For example, assume that a donor gave a painting to a museum organized as a nonprofit corporation and not as a trust. The donor stipulates that the museum must always display the painting as part of its collection, that the painting cannot travel to other museums, and that the mu seum cannot sell the painting. The painting is a program

‐ related asset, so UPMIFA does not apply to the painting. If the museum needs to modify the restriction, perhaps to permit the painting to be exhibited by other museums as a way to raise money to ca re for the painting, the museum may be able to use the common law doctrine of cy pres to request the modification. The museum will not be able to rely on the statutory authority for judicial modification provided under UPMIFA. The fact that the painting is a program

‐ related asset does not affect the donor restriction, but it may affect the availability of court

‐ ordered modification. UPMIFA Program

- Related Assets Article , Uniform Law Commission, https://www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/upmifa

- program

- related

-

investment, purpose, or use of a fund as may be permitted under the gift instrument or by law.
Io wa Code § 540A.106(7).17

assets

- artic?CommunityKey=043b9067

- bc2c

- 46b7

- 8436

- 07c9054064a3 &tab=librarydocuments (last visited Nov. 6 , 2019) (follow “Download” link)

. The attorney general’s quotation only goes so far bec ause this case involves a college, not an art museum. One thoughtful article maintains that university art collections can be considered instrumental funds, depending on the context. See Linda Sugin, Lifting the Museum’s Burden from the Backs of the Univ ersity: Should the Art Collection Be Treated as Part of the Endowment? , 44 New Eng. L. Rev. 541, 557

– 58 (2010). After all, Coe College is an educational institution, and the paintings are kept within the college library , not in a separate on

- campus art mu seum
. But even if the Wood paintings were deemed an institutional fund, the college would still need to demonstrate that the restriction has become impracticable or impossible or, because of circumstances not anticipated by the donor, the restriction will defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the purposes of the institutional fund. See Iowa Code § 540A.106. As we will now see, this overlaps to some extent with what the recipient of a charitable gift must prove to invoke cy pres
. 2. The common law doctrine of cy pres

. The cy pres doctrine refers
to “ [ t ] he equitable doctrine under which a court reforms a written instrument with a gift to charity as closely to the donor’s intention as possible, so that the gift does not fail.” Cy Pres , Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The doctrine is “a liberal rule of construction used to carry out, not defeat, the [donor’s] intent.” In re Tr. of Rothrock , 452 N.W.2d 403, 406 (Iowa 1990) (citing Sim m ons v. Parsons Coll. , 256 N.W.2d 225, 227 ( Iowa 1977)). We stated in Simmons , Cy pres is a doctrine which literally means “as near as may be.” It is applicable only to charitable trusts and then only when the trust established by a [donor] fails, no alternative disposition of the property has be en made, and the18 general trust purposes may be accomplished by permitting it to be administered in a way different from, but closely related to, the [donor’s] plan.
256 N.W.2d at 227 ( quoting Hodge v. Wellman , 191 Iowa 877, 882, 179 N.W. 534, 536 (1920) ).
Our general assembly codified this doctrine into positive law in
1999. 1999 Iowa Acts ch. 125 , § 86 ( originally codified at Iowa Code § 633.5102 (2001)). 4 Iowa Code section 633A.5102 (2017) , “Application of cy pres,” provides , Unless the terms of the trust provide to the contrary the following apply:
1. A charitable trust does not fail, in whole or in part, if a particular purpose for which the trust was created becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible to fulfill.
2. If a particular charitable purpose for which a trust was created becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible to fulfill, the court may modify the terms of the trust or direct that the property of the trust be distributed in whole or in part in a manner best meeting the settlor’s general charitable purposes. If an administrative provision of a charitable trust becomes impracticable, unlawful, impossible to fulfill, or otherwise impairs the effective administration of the trust, the court may modify the provision.

“Unless the statu te directs othe rwise, we will construe section 633A.5102 according to the legislature’s intent as aided by our precedent regarding the common law doctrine of cy pres.” Kolb , 736 N.W.2d at 555. “Section 633A.5102 has not changed the basic tripartite test.” Id. Unless the trust directs otherwise, w e require the following : “ (1) a charitable trust ; (2) a specific trust purpose that is illegal, impractical, or impossible ; and (3) a general charitable intention by the donor

. ” Id

. At the outset, w e must determin e if the explicit terms of the gift l etter disallow the application of cy pres . H ere, the explicit terms of the gift l etter

4 Iowa Code sections 633.1101

– .6308 were transferred to chapter 633A in 2005. See 2005 Iowa Acts ch. 38, § 54.19

stat e that “[t]he Eppley Foundation Board of Directors [has] approved that the Grant Wood paintings be given to the Coe Col lege and that this would be their permanent home, hanging on the walls of Stewart Memorial Library.” There is nothing in this language to indicate that the gift should
fail in the event that the display of the p aintings becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible. See Georgia O’Keef f

e Found . (Museum) v. Fisk
Univ

. , 312 S.W.3d 1, 18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (remanding for the application of cy pres and noting the absence of any “express divesting clause” in Georgia O’Keef f e’s gift of paintings to Fisk Univ ersity). Furthermore, there is nothing in these terms to indicate that modification is prohibited. Thus, the terms of the gift do not bar the application of
section 633A.5102. Under the common law, we then ask whether the Eppley Foundation “anticipated the possible failure of the trust and [if it ] has made alternative disposition of [ its ] property to meet that contingency.” Kolb , 736 N.W.2d at 555 (quoting Simmons , 256 N.W.2d at 227). If so, the application of cy
pres is inappropriate. I d. Again, the gift letter does not indicate that the Eppley Foundation anticipated the failure of the restricted gift of the

p aintings , and the gift letter did not provide for alternative disposition

. Accordingly, the doctrine of cy pres is not precluded from application in
the case before us. Because we have construed the gift l etter to impose restrictions on
Coe Col lege’s ownership rights in the p aintings, the l etter may be deemed
to establish a charitable trust even though it contains no magic t rust la nguage
. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 397 cmt. e , at 287 (Am. Law Inst. 1959). A trust established to display p aintings of a world

renowned local artist in the library of a nonprofit educational institution where other artworks by the same artist are displayed demonstrates a20 charitable purpose. See Iowa Code § 633A.5101(1) (noting a charitable trust may be created for any purpose “beneficial to the community”). Art brings beauty to our world, and Grant Woo d’s style situated in Midwest regionalism and illustrative of rural American themes is perhaps of more importance and allure when displayed in the city wher e he spent much of his youth

. “Thus, the property was held by [Coe College] for a charitable

purpos e and is a charitable trust.” Kolb , 736 N.W.2d at 556 (quoting In re
Tr. of Rothrock , 452 N.W.2d at 405 )

. Next , we must determine if a specific ch aritable purpose of the donated p ai ntings has become impractical, illegal, or impossible. There is
no claim of illegality ; the parties and the district court have focus ed solely on whether honoring the restrictions has become impracticable or impossible. As this court has stated, there is “no precise definition of the standard” and “whether something has become impossible or impracticable is up to the ‘particular facts of each case.’ ” Id. at 556 ( quoting Nancy A. McLaughlin , Rethinking the Perpetual Nature of
Conservation Easements , 29 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 421, 465 (2005) )

. A
trustee or don e e may invoke cy pres despite having caused the impossibility or impracticability, id. at 557, but not “ mere ly to serve trustee
convenie nce,” Howard Sav. Inst. of Newark v. Peep , 170 A.2d 39 , 47

– 48 (N.J. 1961 )

. We are not convinced that implementing the Eppley F oundation’s specific charitable purpose of honoring Eppley and dignifying and beautifying the Coe campus through the display of th e Wood paintings in the Stewart Memorial Library has become impossible or impracticable

. This is not a situation like Kolb where the donated items had to be moved because of a “vital and necessary” economic development project. 736
N.W.2d at 551 (holding that the doctrine of cy pres should be utilized to21 allow relocation of memorial gardens and a fountain in favor of a substantial economic revitalization project ); see also In re Stuart’s Estate , 46 N.Y.S.2d 911, 915

– 16 (Sur. Ct. 1944) (finding that cultural changes between 1891 and 1944 rendered the requirement tha t an art collection
not be exhibited on Sundays impracticable). Coe College has not indicated
that it presently wants to sel l or even relocate any of the paintings. Furthermore, although Coe has demonstrated that its endowment has dropped by $5.4 million due to the reclassification of the paintings as a restricted gift, it has not offered proof of actual financial difficulties resulting therefrom

. 5 Tho se facts might well present a different case. Cf. Georgia O’Kee f

fe Found. , 312 S.W.3d at 19

– 20 (remanding for the application of cy pres to a private university’s application for permission to sell two paintings out of a collection given to it by Georgia O’Keef f e) ; In
re Barnes Found

. , No. 58, 788, 2004 WL 2903655 , at *17

– 18 (P a
. Ct. Com.
Pl. Dec. 13, 2004) (allowing the Barnes Foundation to move its art collection to Philadelphia after finding that it could not raise enoug h money through the sale of non gallery assets to keep the collection in its existing location and achieve fiscal stability)

. To put it another way , the problem here is not that the gift recipient

no longer wants a portion of the gifted asset s and would prefer cash. Cf.
Beland , 735 N.E.2d at 1251; Rockwell , 2017 WL 6940932 , at *2 ; Dennis , 2007 WL 840996, at * 1 ; In re Barnes Found. , 2004 WL 2903655, at *17

– 18; Georgia O’Kee f

fe Found

. , 312 S.W.3d at 4

. Nor is it that the gift has to
be relocated because of other circumstances

. Cf. Ko lb , 736 N.W.2d at 551

–

5 All we know from the stipulated facts is that “reclassification of the Paintings as ‘permanently restricted assets’ resul ts in an adverse impact on the value of the College’s endowment fund, which in turn adversely impacts the College’s financial position for Federal educational institution reporting requirements.”22

25 ; Lord , 639 A.2d at 6 24 ; In re Barnes Found. , 2004 WL 2903655, at *17

– 18

. Instead, due to an unanticipated increase in the value of Grant Wood’s art, the paintings now are worth millions of dollars and would make up seven percent of the college’s endo wment, rather than the original one percent . While we sympathize with difficulties faced by small private colleges in a trying financial environment, it is difficult to see this
fortuitous increase in the value of an asset as rendering the original
restrictions impracticable or impossible to meet on the present record

. O n a different and more robust record , lifting the restrictions on alienability
of some or all the paint ings might be an appropriate exercise of cy pres
. V. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.
AFFIRMED.