Opinion ID: 2087782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Terms of the Trust Provide to the Contrary.

Text: The terms of the trust do not indicate the trust should fail in the event a particular purpose of the trust becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible. See id. § 633A.5102(1) (stating the trust does not fail when a trust purpose does). The terms also fail to prohibit modification of the trust when a particular purpose becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible. See id. § 633A.5102(2) (stating the trust may be modified when a trust purpose fails). Thus, the terms of the trust do not state section 633A.5102 should not apply in this case. Of course, it is also true the terms of the trust do not specifically endorse the directions provided in section 633A.5102. Section 633A.5102, however, effectively establishes a presumption that cy pres should apply if the trust does not state to the contrary. Id. § 633A.5102; see Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 290-91 & n. 844 ([T]he section appears to create a presumption that cy-pres should be applied in the absence of a provision in the trust stating otherwise.). This should not be a surprise, however, as the common law has never required a charitable trust to specifically indicate cy pres should apply. In fact, the common law has always required a similar inquiry. Under the common law we must ask whether the settlor anticipated the possible failure of the trust and [if he or she] has made alternative disposition of his [or her] property to meet that contingency. Simmons, 256 N.W.2d at 227. If so, cy pres could not be applied because in the words of our statute, the trust stated to the contrary. Iowa Code § 633A.5102. In this case, the settlors did not anticipate the failure of the trust. The initial 1968 agreement stated the garden was to continue during the period of the trust as created in [Henry's] Will. Henry did not establish a testamentary trust, however, and the inter-vivos trust he created does not mention any period of duration or otherwise indicate the settlors anticipated its failure. [8] In addition, there is nothing to indicate the settlors had an alternative plan if there was a failure. See, e.g., Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 406 (noting the absence of a forfeiture or reversion clause). As a result, we do not think our statute or the common law initially precludes the application of the cy pres doctrine.