2023 Colorado Revised Statutes › Title 15 - PROBATE, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARIES (§§ 15-1-101 — 15-24-403) › FIDUCIARY (§§ 15-1-101 — 15-1.5-122) › Article 1 - FIDUCIARY (§§ 15-1-101 — 15-1-1518) › Part 11 - UNIFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT (§§ 15-1-1101 — 15-1-1110) › Section 15-1-1106 - Release or modification of restrictions on management, investment, or purpose

(a)
If the donor consents in a record, an institution may release or modify, in whole or in part, a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the management, investment, or purpose of an institutional fund. A release or modification may not allow an institutional fund to be used for a purpose other than a charitable purpose of the institution.
(b)
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 wasteful, if it impairs the management or investment of the institutional fund, or if, because of circumstances not anticipated by the donor, a modification of a restriction will further the purposes of the institutional fund. The institution shall notify the attorney general of the application, and the attorney general must be given an opportunity to be heard. To the extent practicable, any modification must be made in accordance with the donor's probable intention.
(c)
If a particular charitable purpose or a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the use of an institutional fund becomes unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful, the court, upon application of an institution, may modify the purpose of the institutional fund or the restriction on the use of the institutional fund in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument. The institution shall notify the attorney general of the application, and the attorney general must be given an opportunity to be heard.
(d)
If an institution determines that a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the management, investment, or purpose of an institutional fund is unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful, the institution, sixty days after notification to the attorney general, may release or modify the restriction, in whole or part, if:
(1)
The institutional fund, subject to the restriction, has a total value of less than one hundred thousand dollars; except that the dollar limit established in this paragraph (1) shall be adjusted for inflation in accordance with the annual percentage change in the United States department of labor, bureau of labor statistics, consumer price index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood for all items and all urban consumers, or its applicable predecessor or successor index. On or before January 1, 2010, and each even-numbered year thereafter, the attorney general shall calculate the adjusted dollar amount for the next two-year cycle using inflation for the prior two calendar years as of the date of the calculation. The adjusted exemption shall be rounded upward to the nearest one-hundred-dollar increment. The attorney general shall certify the amount of the adjustment for the next two-year cycle and shall publish the amount on the attorney general's website.
(2)
More than twenty years have elapsed since the institutional fund was established; and
(3)
The institution uses the property in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument.
Amended by 2018 Ch. 274,§ 11, eff. 5/29/2018.
L. 2008: Entire part R&RE, p. 563, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2018: (d)(1) amended, (HB 18-1375), ch. 274, p. 1697, § 11, effective May 29.
This section is similar to former § 15-1-1109 as it existed prior to 2008.
OFFICIAL COMMENT
Section 6 expands the rules on releasing or modifying restrictions that are found in Section 7 of UMIFA. Subsection (a) restates the rule from UMIFA allowing the release of a restriction with donor consent. Subsections (b) and (c) make clear that an institution can always ask a court to apply equitable deviation or cy pres to modify or release a restriction, under appropriate circumstances. Subsection (d), a new provision, permits an institution to apply cy pres on its own for small funds that have existed for a substantial period of time, after giving notice to the state attorney general.
Although UMIFA stated that it did not "limit the application of the doctrine of cy pres", UMIFA § 7(d), what that statement meant under the Act was unclear. UMIFA itself appeared to permit only a release of a restriction and not a modification. That all-or-nothing approach did not adequately protect donor intent. See Yale Univ. v. Blumenthal, 621 A.2d 1304 (Conn. 1993). By expressly including deviation and cy pres, UPMIFA requires an institution to seek modifications that are "in accordance with the donor's probable intention" for deviation and "in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument" for cy pres.
Individual Funds. The rules on modification require that the institution, or a court applying a court-ordered doctrine, review each institutional fund separately. Although an institution may manage institutional funds collectively, for purposes of this Section each fund must be considered individually.
Subsection (a). Donor Release. Subsection (a) permits the release of a restriction if the donor consents. A release with donor consent cannot change the charitable beneficiary of the fund. Although the donor has the power to consent to a release of a restriction, this section does not create a power in the donor that will cause a federal tax problem for the donor. The gift to the institution is a completed gift for tax purposes, the property cannot be diverted from the charitable beneficiary, and the donor cannot redirect the property to another use by the charity. The donor has no retained interest in the fund.
Subsection (b). Equitable Deviation. Subsection (b) applies the rule of equitable deviation, adapting the language of UTC § 412 to this section. See also Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 66 (2003). Under the deviation doctrine, a court may modify restrictions on the way an institution manages or administers a fund in a manner that furthers the purposes of the fund. Deviation implements the donor's intent. A donor commonly has a predominating purpose for a gift and, secondarily, an intent that the purpose be carried out in a particular manner. Deviation does not alter the purpose but rather modifies the means in order to carry out the purpose.
Sometimes deviation is needed on account of circumstances unanticipated when the donor created the restriction. In other situations the restriction may impair the management or investment of the fund. Modification of the restriction may permit the institution to carry out the donor's purposes in a more effective manner. A court applying deviation should attempt to follow the donor's probable intention in deciding how to modify the restriction. Consistent with the doctrine of equitable deviation in trust law, subsection (b) does not require an institution to notify donors of the proposed modification. Good practice dictates notifying any donors who are alive and can be located with a reasonable expenditure of time and money. Consistent with the doctrine of deviation under trust law, the institution must notify the attorney general who may choose to participate in the court proceeding. The attorney general protects donor intent as well as the public's interest in charitable assets. Attorney general is in brackets in the Act because in some states another official enforces the law of charities.
Subsection (c). Cy Pres. Subsection (c) applies the rule of cy pres from trust law, authorizing the court to modify the purpose of an institutional fund. The term "modify" encompasses the release of a restriction as well as an alteration of a restriction and also permits a court to order that the fund be paid to another institution. A court can apply the doctrine of cy pres only if the restriction in question has become unlawful, impracticable, impossible to achieve, or wasteful. This standard, which comes from UTC § 413, updates the circumstances under which cy pres may be applied by adding "wasteful" to the usual common law articulation of the doctrine. Any change must be made in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument. See also Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 67 (2003). Consistent with the doctrine of cy pres, subsection (c) does not require an institution seeking cy pres to notify donors. Good practice will be to notify donors whenever possible. As with deviation, the institution must notify the attorney general who must have the opportunity to be heard in the proceeding.
Subsection (d). Modification of Small, Old Funds. Subsection (d) permits an institution to release or modify a restriction according to cy pres principles but without court approval if the amount of the institutional fund involved is small and if the institutional fund has been in existence for more than 20 years. The rationale is that under some circumstances a restriction may no longer make sense but the cost of a judicial cy pres proceeding will be too great to warrant a change in the restriction. The Drafting Committee discussed at length the parameters for allowing an institution to apply cy pres without court supervision. The Committee drafted subsection (d) to balance the needs of an institution to serve its charitable purposes efficiently with the policy of enforcing donor intent. The Committee concluded that an institutional fund with a value of $25,000 or less is sufficiently small that the cost of a judicial proceeding will be out of proportion to its protective purpose. The Committee included a requirement that the institutional fund be in existence at least 20 years, as a further safeguard for fidelity to donor intent. The 20-year period begins to run from the date of inception of the fund and not from the date of each gift to the fund. The amount and the number of years have been placed in brackets to signal to an enacting jurisdiction that it may wish to designate a higher or lower figure. Because the amount should reflect the cost of a judicial proceeding to obtain a modification, the number may be higher in some states and lower in others.
As under judicial cy pres, an institution acting under subsection (d) must change the restriction in a manner that is in keeping with the intent of the donor and the purpose of the fund. For example, if the value of a fund is too small to justify the cost of administration of the fund as a separate fund, the term "wasteful" would allow the institution to combine the fund with another fund with similar purposes. If a fund has been created for nursing scholarships and the institution closes its nursing school, the institution might appropriately decide to use the fund for other scholarships at the institution. In using the authority granted under subsection (d), the institution must determine which alternative use for the fund reasonably approximates the original intent of the donor. The institution cannot divert the fund to an entirely different use. For example, the fund for nursing scholarships could not be used to build a football stadium.
An institution seeking to modify a provision under subsection (d) must notify the attorney general of the planned modification. The institution must wait 60 days before proceeding; the attorney general may take action if the proposed modification appears inappropriate.
Notice to Donors. The Drafting Committee decided not to require notification of donors under subsections (b), (c), and (d). The trust law rules of equitable deviation and cy pres do not require donor notification and instead depend on the court and the attorney general to protect donor intent and the public's interest in charitable assets.
With regard to subsection (d), the Drafting Committee concluded that an institution should not be required to give notice to donors. Subsection (d) can only be used for an old and small fund. Locating a donor who contributed to the fund more than 20 years earlier may be difficult and expensive. If multiple donors each gave a small amount to create a fund 20 years earlier, the task of locating all of those donors would be harder still. The Drafting Committee concluded that an institution's concern for donor relations would serve as a sufficient incentive for notifying donors when donors can be located.