Practice Note: The Irrevocable Provision, among other things, helps establish trust requirement that it not be altered in any way. It acts as a great pre and post nuptial property directive. It also requires favorable tax treatment and limits legal liability.
Found 663 professional articles and 1000+ court cases analyzing or referencing irrevocable trusts. There are no cases challenging this provision.
Tex. Prop. Code § 112.051
Updated January 30, 2019
Sec. 112.051 REVOCATION, MODIFICATION, OR AMENDMENT BY SETTLOR
(a) A settlor may revoke the trust unless it is irrevocable by the express terms of the instrument creating it or of an instrument modifying it.
(b) The settlor may modify or amend a trust that is revocable, but the settlor may not enlarge the duties of the trustee without the trustee’s express consent.
(c) If the trust was created by a written instrument, a revocation, modification, or amendment of the trust must be in writing.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3332, ch. 567, art. 2, Sec. 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
Practical Considerations of an Irrevocable Trust
Deeming irrevocable trust effective upon distribution of assets into trust.
Platt v. Wells Fargo Bank
222 Cal. App. 2d 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
Holding that where spouses created irrevocable trust for benefit of family members, trust income was not community property
Tobin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
183 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1950)
Holding that a bank account owned by an irrevocable trust was not marital property
Seggelke v. Seggelke
319 S.W.3d 461 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
Noting that where spouses created an irrevocable trust, “the trust corpus is not the property of either spouse and thus cannot be marital property”
Wilburn v. Wilburn
743 S.E.2d 734 (S.C. 2013)
Holding that irrevocable trust was not marital property unless a spouse made a fraudulent transfer of marital property to the trust
Gibson v. Gibson
801 S.E.2d 40 (Ga. 2017)
Holding that the trial court could properly award the wife half of the husband’s beneficial interest in irrevocable trust , but could not award her the trust’s assets
Endrody v. Endrody
914 P.2d 1166 (Utah 1996)
Holding that the trial court could not divide the marital residence, which was placed in an irrevocable trust for benefit of husband and wife, but it could divide the parties’ interest in the trust
Findlen v. Findlen
695 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1997)
Where ever possible, I include Black Letter Law (like the above) to the provision at issue.