Opinion ID: 891653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Martha's Original Community Interest Unaffected by 1999 Amendment

Text: {40} Even if the law were different and a trust could not be created that would give a surviving spouse the right to make a trust amendment affecting what was once a deceased's half of their community property, the reality is that Lowell did not do so in this case. His 1999 amendments affected less than half of the assets remaining in the trust. By allowing what originally was Martha's half share to go equally to their three children, as they had contemplated in the first remainder distribution schedule, the totality of the 1999 distribution amendments would be accomplished solely by dividing what originally was Lowell's half share in the following manner: Lowell's One-Half Interest (50% of the whole) Gary - 1.63% of the whole Larrie - 1.63% of the whole Shirley - 7.73% of the whole Grandchildren - 27.50% of the whole Charity - 10.00% of the whole Friends - 1.50% of the whole By adding these figures to Martha's original distribution schedule, a one-third share to each child from what had been her community interest, both Martha's and Lowell's desired distribution schemes could be achieved. The following table details the relevant calculations: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lowell's Share Martha's Share Total Received Beneficiaries (% of whole trust) (% of whole trust) (% of whole trust) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Larrie Cable 1.63% 16.67% 18.30% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Cable 1.63% 16.67% 18.30% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Trevino 7.73% 16.67% 24.40% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grandchildren 27.50% 0.00% 27.50% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charity 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friends 1.50% 0.00% 1.50% ________________________________________________________________________________ Approx. total 50.00% 50.00% 100.0% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {41} By contrast, Gary's position would deny not only Lowell's right to control the half of the community property that Martha intentionally had left in trust for his benefit, it would also deny Lowell's right to control the part that had been his own half of the community property before Martha's death. There is no principle of New Mexico law that would dictate such an extreme result. Indeed, even the California precedent relied on by Gary would not dictate that result. See Powell, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d at 504 (recognizing effectiveness of surviving spouse's trust revocation as to his half of the trust corpus). {42} Finally, we find it unnecessary to reach the propriety of the Court of Appeals' reliance solely on implying a right to amend from the surviving spouse's unrestricted power to withdraw all assets of the trust. Our holding is based on the broader basis of the donative intent reflected in the totality of the trust documentation and supporting extrinsic evidence in this case. While the provision granting an unrestricted right of the survivor to withdraw all assets is certainly helpful in that analysis, it is only one of a number of manifestations of the intent expressed by Lowell and Martha in their trust. We do not need to, and by this Opinion explicitly do not, address hypothetical issues that might result from a trust in which there is an apparent conflict between a provision granting a survivor total power to withdraw and a provision denying the survivor the right to amend, as was presented in Crook.
{43} Lowell's 1999 amendments, including the revised distribution schedule and appointment of Wells Fargo as successor trustee, were authorized by both the letter and the intent of the Cable Family Trust. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo and remand to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. {44} IT IS SO ORDERED.