CASE 51.2—CRITICAL THINKING
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
According to Michael’s view of the phrase “death of each,” how many co-trustees would
have succeeded Dennis on his death? Explain. According to Michael’s view, the phrase
“death of each,” as used in the succession provision of the Dowdy Family Trust, meant the
death of either initial trustee. In his action against Betty to rescind her sale of the trust property,
he asserted that this meant he became a co-trustee with Betty on his father’s death. But the
trust document also named Michael’s stepsister (Betty’s daughter) Deborah as a co-successor
trustee. And the succession provision did not specify that Michael would succeed Dennis and
Deborah would succeed Betty (or vice versa). In other words, under Michael’s interpretation,
both children would have become co–trustees on the “death of each” of the initial trustees—after
Dennis’s death, he and Deborah would have become co-trustees with Betty.
The succession provision’s failure to assign a specific successor to a particular deceased
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?
Suppose that the Dowdy Family Trust had provided for a specific child to become co–
trustee on the death of his or her parent—Deborah to succeed Betty, for example. How
would the result have been different? If the Dowdy Family Trust had provided for a specific
child to become co-trustee on the death of his or her parent, Michael, or another specific named