Court Opinion

ID: 9528893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:00.962887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:27.205576
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
concurring: The concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Fromme, in which I join, expresses my view that the trust disposition in this case is testamentary in character and is invalid as violative of the statute of wills.
Going beyond this point, I do not think the trust instrument can be given effect for another reason. The trial court found Frances, daughter of Pearl Ingram, deceased, had not sustained *232her burden of proof to establish that the trust declaration was in effect at the time of Pearl Ingram’s death. This is, in effect, a finding that the trust had been revoked during the life of the settlor, which by the specific terms of the trust instrument the settlor had reserved the right to do.
The trust instrument on its face indicated it was executed in duplicate by the settlor. Neither of the two original copies executed by the settlor were produced. The conservator, appointed when Pearl Ingram was adjudicated incompetent, did not find an original trust declaration executed by Pearl Ingram among Pearl’s valuable papers or anywhere else. The company, United Funds, Inc., produced no original, which they were required to keep for their protection, but the brokerage firm of Waddel ir Reid, Inc. did produce a copy of the two trust declarations from an old file. The original search by the brokerage firm produced no trust declaration executed by Pearl Ingram.
On the foregoing record the trial court was clearly within its powers when it declared that Frances had failed to sustain her burden of proof to establish the trust declaration was in effect at the time of Pearl Ingram’s death.
Revocation of a written trust declaration, as in the case of a will, may be accomplished by burning or destroying the instrument with the intention to revoke the instrument, unless otherwise indicated in the document creating the trust. Under the circumstances it must be presumed that Pearl Ingram revoked the trust while she was mentally competent to do so. Frances, upon whom the burden of proof was cast to establish the existence of the trust, failed to overcome this presumption by any evidence whatever.