Opinion ID: 2087782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether a Particular Trust Purpose has Become Impossible, Impracticable or Unlawful.

Text: We must also determine whether a particular purpose for which the trust was created [has] become [] impracticable, unlawful, or impossible to fulfill. Iowa Code § 633A.5102(1); see Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 290 (noting one must [d]etermine whether the original trust purpose was impossible to fulfill, illegal or impracticable  in the sense that to devote funds would not fulfill the settlor's intention). There is no claim of unlawfulness; the parties and district court have focused solely on whether the purpose of funding the improvement and maintenance of the garden at the surveyed location has become impracticable or impossible. [9] A review of the case law on impossibility and impracticability has led many to believe no precise definition of the standard exists, and whether something has become impossible or impracticable is up to the particular facts of each case. Nancy A. McLaughlin, Rethinking the Perpetual Nature of Conservation Easements, 29 Harv. Envtl. L.Rev. 421, 465 (2005). We agree. We also believe the particular facts of this case reveal it was impracticable to fund the garden at its original location. The record reveals Project Awaysis is a multi-million dollar endeavor, funded in part by Vision Iowa. The evidence clearly indicates the City devoted considerable thought and planning to the project. Moreover, and although contested, there is evidence the City would have preferred to keep the garden and fountain at their original locations. The project manager plainly testified of the need for the garden and fountain to be moved. Otherwise, the lodge and aquatic facilities could not be built adjacent to each other, which the planners believed was essential to the project's success. Such a massive project should be planned in a way that maximizes its potential, and when the location of the garden and fountain jeopardize that potential it becomes impractical not to relocate them. As a result, we think it would be impracticable to fund the garden at its original location. See Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 406 (applying cy pres because it was impractical to carry out the particular trust purpose). In addition, it is now certainly impossible to fulfill this particular purpose of the trust. The City voluntarily destroyed the garden and fountain to begin the construction of Project Awaysis. It has no intention of rebuilding them at their original locations. Consequently, it is literally impossible for the trust to fund the garden at its original location. Of course, it was not impossible for the trust to fund the garden until the City voluntarily destroyed the garden and fountain. Thus, the City caused the impossibility. Furthermore, the City caused the impracticability by planning and moving forward with Project Awaysis. Some courts have recognized that a trustee or donee cannot invoke the doctrine of cy pres when he or she causes the impossibility, impracticability, or illegality. See, e.g., Conn. College v. United States, 276 F.2d 491, 497-98 (D.C.Cir.1960) (Nor may a trustee by his own act produce changed conditions which frustrate the donor's intention and still claim the gift through the application of the cy pres doctrine.). We have at least hinted at such a rule in one of our cases. See Curtis & Barker v. Cent. Univ. of Iowa, 188 Iowa 300, 322, 176 N.W. 330, 338 (1920) (It occurs to us that [donee], having voluntarily put it beyond its power to carry out the purposes of the donors as to the denominational control of the college, is not in a position to ask that this fund be disposed of cy pres.). We do not believe, however, that a per se rule against the cy pres doctrine exists when the trustee or donee causes the impracticability, impossibility, or illegality. The rule against cy pres in such a case has been justified because permitting modification would allow the trustee or donee to disregard the express terms of the grant or devise. President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Jewett, 11 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1925). But there are circumstances when a natural and unavoidable change in conditions or circumstances causes the trustee or donee to act. Id. In such cases, we think a proper disregard for the grant or devise may be maintained by the donee or trustee that does not preclude the application of cy pres. See id. ; see also Howard Sav. Inst. of Newark v. Peep, 34 N.J. 494, 170 A.2d 39, 47-48 (1961) (noting the changed circumstances were not merely to serve trustee convenience). After all, the trustee or donee is the cause of the impossibility or impracticability in most cases. See, e.g., Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 404 (noting donee wanted to use trust funds for more than what trust specified). Moreover, our hint in Curtis was dicta and we commented on the question [of cy pres] but briefly because the appellant/donee had not briefed or argued it. 188 Iowa at 321-22, 176 N.W. at 335-37 (resolving the case under the more important questions of contract law). Thus, we refuse to adopt a per se rule that a trustee or donee may not invoke the doctrine of cy pres when he or she causes the impossibility, impracticability, or illegality. We also believe the City's actions in this case, while causing the impracticability and impossibility, are the result of natural and unavoidable changes. It is only natural for a city to respond to the inevitable changes in its economic and societal needs. Project Awaysis provided that response. Moreover, it was unavoidable in the sense that a city has the responsibility to make improvements, whether it is to roads, public buildings, or city parks. It was also unavoidable in the sense we have already indicated: the plans for Project Awaysis required the removal of the garden and fountain. While the settlors specifically wanted the trust to fund the garden at a particular location within the park, the City is not improperly disregarding the express terms of the trust by planning an economic revitalization project that requires the garden to be moved.