Opinion ID: 2087782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Cy Pres Doctrine in Iowa.

Text: In French cy pres means as near as, and is usually pronounced see pray. Black's Law Dictionary 415 (8th ed. 2004); see Ronald Chester, George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, The Law of Trusts & Trustees § 431, at 113-14 (3d ed. 2005) (noting the French pronunciation is see pray, and that if Anglicized, it would be pronounced as if spelled si press, but that common usage mistakenly mixes the two so as to be pronounced as if spelled si pray) [hereinafter Bogert, Trusts & Trustees ]. It is derived from the French Norman expression cy pres comme possible, which means as near as possible. See In re Gerber, 652 P.2d 937, 939 n. 4 (Utah 1982); see also Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 406. Cy pres is a common law doctrine that permits a court to change the purpose or recipients of a charitable trust under certain circumstances. Martin D. Begleiter, In the Code We Trust  Some Trust Law for Iowa at Last, 49 Drake L.Rev. 165, 290 (Iowa 2001) [hereinafter Begleiter, Code We Trust ]; see Black's Law Dictionary 415 (defining cy pres as an equitable doctrine under which a court reforms a written instrument with a gift to charity as closely to the donor's intention as possible, so that the gift does not fail). When the doctrine applies, however, the change must be cy pres comme possible, or as near as may be, to the settlor's original intention. See Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 56, 10 S.Ct. 792, 807, 34 L.Ed. 478, 495 (1890) (recognizing the common law doctrine of cy pres, and stating its use is to fulfill the charitable purpose as near as may be, to the original intention of the donor). The cy pres doctrine was not immediately recognized in Iowa. See Filkins v. Severin, 127 Iowa 738, 738, 104 N.W. 346, 346 (1905) ([T]he cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this state. . . .); Lupton v. Leander Clark Coll., 194 Iowa 1008, 1023, 187 N.W. 496, 502 (1922) (Faville, J., dissenting) (I do not care to enter into the discussion of the interesting question as to how far we have recognized the application of the cy pres doctrine in this state.); see also Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 433, at 148-49 (explaining why American courts were reluctant to recognize cy pres). Now the doctrine is not only widely accepted by our courts, see, e.g., Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 406 (holding the trial court properly applied the common law doctrine of cy pres), but our legislature has codified the doctrine into law, see 1999 Iowa Acts ch. 125, § 86 (codified at Iowa Code § 633.5102 (2001), and creating a new section entitled Application of cy-pres); Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 290 (recognizing newly enacted Iowa Code section 633.5102 (2001) codified the common law doctrine of cy pres). As a result, whether the cy pres doctrine applies in this case is dependent upon our construction and analysis of section 633A.5102. [6] Section 633A.5102 states in its entirety: Unless the terms of the trust provide to the contrary the following apply: 1. A charitable trust does not fail, in whole or in part, if a particular purpose for which the trust was created becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible to fulfill. 2. If a particular charitable purpose for which a trust was created becomes impracticable, unlawful, or impossible to fulfill, the court may modify the terms of the trust or direct that the property of the trust be distributed in whole or in part in a manner best meeting the settlor's general charitable purposes. If an administrative provision of a charitable trust becomes impracticable, unlawful, impossible to fulfill, or otherwise impairs the effective administration of the trust, the court may modify the provision. [7] Iowa Code § 633A.5102. We have never before construed this section, but we are aided by what we have said regarding the common law doctrine of cy pres. See id. § 633A.1104 (Except to the extent that this chapter modifies the common law governing trusts, the common law of trusts shall supplement this trust code.); Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L.Rev. at 902 (noting the similarity between the common law doctrine and our statute). Unless the statute directs otherwise, we will construe section 633A.5102 according to the legislature's intent as aided by our precedent regarding the common law doctrine of cy pres.