AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 a trust instrument created by Harry Deupree, which granted his wife, Lucille, a life estate in their home. The trust provided that if Lucille could no longer live in the home, it would be sold, and the proceeds used for her health and maintenance. Lucille lived in the home with around-the-clock nursing care until her death. The dispute arose over whether the trust allowed the trustee to pay for Lucille's nursing expenses while she still resided in the home (paras 1-8).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Held that Lucille's interest in the proceeds of the house sale must be offset against the nursing care expenses paid by the trustee, denying the motion to compel payment under the Settlement Agreement (paras 1, 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Lucille's personal representative): Argued that Lucille was entitled to access the trust funds for her health and maintenance once she decided she could no longer live in the home, regardless of her physical location. Claimed the trust language was ambiguous and should be interpreted to allow flexibility in providing for Lucille's care (paras 11-12).
• Respondent (Deupree children): Contended that Lucille could not access the trust funds while still living in the home, as the trust was intended to provide for her only after she moved out. Asserted that the nursing expenses should be offset against her entitlement under the Settlement Agreement (paras 8-9, 13).

Legal Issues

• Was Lucille entitled to access the trust funds for her nursing care while still living in the home?
• Did the district court correctly interpret the trust instrument in light of Harry Deupree's intent?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Lucille was not entitled to access the trust funds while living in the home and that the nursing expenses were properly offset against her entitlement under the Settlement Agreement (paras 21-22).

Reasons

Per Pickard J. (Bosson CJ. and Kennedy J. concurring):

• The court found the trust language ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. It was proper for the district court to rely on extrinsic evidence to ascertain Harry's intent (paras 12-13).
• Testimony from the attorney who drafted the trust indicated that Harry intended Lucille to use her personal resources, including paintings and royalties, while living in the home. The trust was meant to provide for her only after she moved out (paras 13-14).
• The sequence of events in the trust instrument supported this interpretation, as the trust funds were to be created from the sale of the house, which would occur only after Lucille moved out (paras 15-16).
• The court rejected the argument that Lucille's subjective decision to move out triggered her right to access the trust, as she never physically left the home (paras 17-18).
• The court acknowledged that Harry likely did not anticipate the specific circumstances but emphasized that it could not vary from his intent as expressed in the trust instrument (para 19).
• The court clarified that Lucille was not required to exhaust all her resources before accessing the trust but could only do so after moving out of the home (para 20).

Special Concurrence by Kennedy J.:

• Kennedy J. expressed frustration with the outcome, noting the inequitable conduct of the Deupree children, who removed assets intended for Lucille's support shortly after Harry's death. However, he concurred with the legal correctness of the decision, emphasizing that the court was bound by the law and the trust's terms (paras 23-26).