Estates and Trusts Commons^™

Laws Governing Restrictions On Charitable Gifts: The Consequences Of Codification, Nancy Mclaughlin

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Over the last two decades we have seen marked changes in the laws governing donor-imposed restrictions on charitable gifts. These changes have occurred primarily as a result of the adoption in many states of the Uniform Trust Code (the UTC) and the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA). This Essay explains that codification in the UTC and UPMIFA of liberalized versions of cy pres and deviation, as well as other related changes to the common law, have had unintended negative consequences. Those negative consequences include a lack of coherence in the law, an elevation of form over substance …

Keeping Current - Probate [Notes], Claire Hargrove, Paula Moore, William P. Lapiana, Jake W. Villanueva

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Remediating Injustices For Black Land Loss: Taking The Next Step To Protect Heirs' Property, Phyllis C. Taite

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Confusing Cy Près, Christopher J. Ryan Jr.

Articles by Maurer Faculty

American courts have increasingly considered the possibility of prolonging the life of charitable trusts through cy près and the closely related doctrine of equitable deviation. This requires courts to interpret the material purposes of trusts and even the administrative terms on which settlors of charitable trusts condition gifts in trust made for public benefit. Yet, the implicit reasons why courts might invoke cy près to change a charitable trust’s material purpose have not been explored in significant depth heretofore—and neither has a common but vexing trend of courts conflating cy près with deviation, which negatively impacts charitable trust-making.

I analyze …

Third-Party Releases Under The Bankruptcy Code After Purdue Pharma, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson

Articles

The biggest bankruptcy case ever (as measured by unsecured claims against a debtor-in-possession) is In re Purdue Pharma, LLC. The bankruptcy court affirmed a plan discharging the Sackler family (equity owners and often officers of Purdue) of all “derivative” claims that belonged to the debtor-in-possession. The settlement was bought for a substantial sum payable over time by the Sacklers. A debtor-in-possession is the sole owner of a derivative claim and has the power to bind all the creditors to a settlement. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a plan discharging derivative claims is confirmable. In fact, as we will, show, a great …