14 Ralph explains that the settlors make the distribution of the trust subject to the fact that it was at least thirty-five years old, indicating that they intended their grandchildren to have a degree of maturity and stability before obtaining the fiduciary distribution. Ralph states that, given her medical conditions and the inability to manage her finances independently, Nancy will never reach a degree of maturity to manage the distribution of funds; Special needs should therefore be relied upon. The court may also amend a trust – and perhaps make the amendment retroactively – so that the tax objectives of the settlors can be better achieved if the change is not contrary to the likely intent of the settlors. U.T.C. §416 Nor is it a wasted trust. “A trust in which the terms of the trust or the law impose a valid restriction on the voluntary and involuntary transfer of the beneficiary`s shares is a wasted trust.” Reformulation (second) of Trusts § 152 (2). (Highlighted only here.) While no specific language is required to create a wasted trust, id. to comment c, here the terms of the instrument trust do not manifest Andrew J. Brown`s intention to create such a trust. See Huestis v.

Manley, 110 vt. 413 419, 8 A.2d 644, 646 (1939). 7 “We review the factual findings of a district court to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. We check the legal findings of a district court to determine whether that court`s interpretation of the law is correct. In re Estate of Berthot, 2002 MT 277, ¶21, 312 Mont. 366, 59 p.3d 1080 omitted quotations). As explained below, we review the rejection by a district court of a request to remove an agent, under sole discretion. §11 Official commentary on § 72-33-618, MCA, explains that this statute is based on the (second) reformulation of Trusts § 107 (1959), the California Probate Code and the Texas Trust Code. The comments of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts explain that a court “may remove an agent if its subsequent action as an agent was prejudicial to the interests of the beneficiary. The case is a matter that is subject to reasonable judgment by the court. » Reformulation (second) of Trusts § 107 cmt. a; see also Restatement (Second) de Trusts § 37 cmt.

d (2003) (“The case is largely left to the discretion of the court of justice, but is subject to an examination of the abuse of discretion.”) We agree with these comments and will use a misuse of authority to review a district court`s rejection of an application to remove an agent, in addition to verifying factual findings and findings of law according to the usual standards of verification set out earlier. . . .