This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the interpretation of the Cable Family Trust, created in 1987 by a married couple, to determine whether the surviving grantor had the authority to amend the trust after the death of the other grantor. The trust provided the surviving grantor with the unrestricted right to withdraw all assets, but its amendment clause required joint action by both grantors during their lifetimes. After the wife’s death, the husband amended the trust, altering the distribution of assets among their children and other beneficiaries (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, finding that the surviving grantor had the implied authority to amend the trust after the death of the other grantor (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Beneficiary): Argued that the trust’s amendment clause required joint action by both grantors during their lifetimes, making the amendments made by the surviving grantor invalid (para 4).
- Appellee (Wells Fargo Bank): Contended that the surviving grantor’s unrestricted right to withdraw all trust assets implied the authority to amend the trust, supported by extrinsic evidence from the drafting attorney (paras 4-5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the surviving grantor had the authority to amend the trust after the death of the other grantor.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the surviving grantor had the implied authority to amend the trust (para 17).
Reasons
Per Robinson J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The court held that the trust’s provision granting the surviving grantor the unrestricted right to withdraw all assets implied the authority to amend the trust. While the amendment clause required joint action during the lifetimes of both grantors, this restriction did not apply after one grantor’s death. The court reasoned that allowing the surviving grantor to revoke the trust entirely but not amend it would be illogical. Extrinsic evidence, including the drafting attorney’s affidavit, supported this interpretation. The court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on the amendment clause in isolation, emphasizing the need to interpret the trust as a whole (paras 6-16).