Opinion ID: 1242580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equitable approximation.

Text: On appeal, the trustee suggests that, while the trial court used the cy pres doctrine, its permitting amendment of the trust rests rather on the applicability of the doctrine of approximation or equitable deviation. Both a new statute, [10] and one in effect at the time of this petition, [11] embody the common-law concept. [12] This corollary to cy pres derives from the two-part character of a trust agreement, [13] and refers to conflicts developing between the two, [14] with courts, at common law or by statute in this state, to give preference to dispositive provisions over administrative directives. [15] However, this doctrine, it follows, is used or usable only to give preference to dispositive over administrative provisions. It permits only the amending of administrative terms in a trust. [16] In the case before us, the class of beneficiary limitation is not such an administrative provision. [17] The provision requiring members of the foundation committee to be residents of the city of Oshkosh would be such an administrative provision. But, for equitable approximation or deviation to become applicable, some conflict between the committee residency requirement and the purposes of the trust would have to be located. We find no such conflict. No evidence was introduced that the committee would be unable to serve its purpose or fulfill its function without nonresident committee members. Equitable approximation or deviation means only that, where there is a conflict between a dispositive provision and an administrative direction, the latter is to give way. Where there is no conflict, the equitable approximation or deviation doctrine is not available to vary the details of administration which the trust prescribes.