Trusts & Estates for the MPT Library

⚡ 10-Second Rule

A will needs writing, a signature, and two witnesses; a trust needs real intent, real property, and someone to benefit.

🧒 ELI-10 Scene

Nana Rosa hands her neighbor Sam a jar of savings. "Hold this, and spend it only on Mia's ballet lessons," she says. Sam now guards the jar for Mia, never for himself. That's the trust idea: a keeper, a jar, and a kid it's for. Rosa also writes a letter saying who gets her house someday. She signs it while two friends watch and sign too. That's the will idea. No letter? The state's default recipe decides.

⚖️ Actual Rule

This is MPT library material: on the exam, the MPT's Library supplies the controlling law, and this lesson only builds background fluency so that law reads faster. Majority-rule foundations: (1) Will formalities (UPC-style, paraphrased) — a will must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by another in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction), and signed by at least two witnesses who witnessed the testator's signing or acknowledgment. [NJ-VARIANT: flagged for future Eli Explains NJ Law module] (2) Revocation — by a later will or codicil that revokes expressly or by inconsistency, or by a physical act (burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating) done with intent to revoke. (3) Intestacy — without a valid will, statutes distribute the estate in fixed shares, with the surviving spouse and descendants taking first. (4) Trust creation (UTC-style, paraphrased) — a valid private trust requires a settlor with capacity and intent to create a trust, trust property (a res), a definite or ascertainable beneficiary (with exceptions for charitable and certain other trusts), and a trustee with real duties; the same person may not be the sole trustee and sole beneficiary, but a trust never fails for lack of a trustee — a court appoints one. (5) Revocability — at common law a trust was irrevocable unless the settlor reserved revocation; the UTC reverses the default, treating a trust as revocable unless its terms expressly say otherwise — so the MPT Library's stated default always controls. (6) Trustee fiduciary duties — loyalty (administer solely in the beneficiaries' interest; no self-dealing), prudence in investment and administration, impartiality among beneficiaries, and keeping beneficiaries reasonably informed. (7) Will contests — testamentary capacity requires the testator to understand the nature of making a will, the general extent of the property, the natural objects of the testator's bounty, and the disposition being made; undue influence requires influence that overcame the testator's free will and caused a disposition the testator would not otherwise have made, with a presumption often arising from a confidential relationship plus suspicious circumstances.

ELI-10 translation: signed-and-witnessed letters control who inherits; jars with keepers and named kids are trusts; keepers must stay loyal and careful.

🔍 Ask These Questions

1. Is there a valid will? (A written letter, signed, with two witnesses signing too?)
2. Was it revoked? (Did a newer letter replace it, or did the writer destroy it on purpose?)
3. No valid will — who takes under intestacy? (The state's default recipe: spouse and children first.)
4. Was a trust actually created? (Real intent to command, a real jar of property, a named kid, a keeper?)
5. Can the settlor still undo the trust? (Check the document, then the governing default — the packet's law decides.)
6. Is the trustee behaving? (The keeper must be loyal, careful, and honest with the kids it's for.)
7. Any contest grounds? (Did the writer understand the letter, and sign it free of arm-twisting?)

⚠️ Bar Trap

Exam language: The revocability default is a classic flip: at common law a trust silent on revocation is irrevocable, while under the UTC the same silent trust is revocable — examinees who answer from a memorized default rather than the governing law (on the MPT, the Library) reverse the outcome entirely. A companion trap treats precatory language — "wish," "hope," "desire" — as sufficient trust intent.

ELI-10: When a trust document says nothing about undoing it, the answer depends on which rulebook governs. Read the packet's rule; never guess from memory. And wishing words don't build a trust — only commanding words do.

🧪 Question

Elena signed and had notarized a statement providing: "It is my hope and desire that my brother Tomas will use the $40,000 in my savings account to help my daughter Priya with college expenses, if he thinks it wise." Elena died shortly thereafter, and the account passed to Tomas under her will. Priya sues, claiming Tomas holds the $40,000 as trustee of an express trust for her benefit. Under majority trust doctrine, what result?

(A) A valid trust exists, because the res and beneficiary are both clearly identified. (B) A valid trust exists, because the notarized writing satisfies the formalities for creating a trust. (C) No trust exists, because Elena's precatory language expressed a hope rather than an intent to impose an enforceable duty on Tomas. (D) No trust exists, because Tomas never formally accepted appointment as trustee.

Answer: (C). Trust creation requires manifested intent to impose enforceable duties on the holder of the property; language of hope, wish, or desire — reinforced here by "if he thinks it wise" — is precatory and creates a moral request, not a trust.

💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong

• (A) checks two elements but skips the threshold one; without settlor intent to command, an identified res and beneficiary create nothing.
• (B) confuses execution formalities with intent; no formality can supply the missing intention to impose enforceable duties.
• (D) relies on a non-element; a trust never fails for want of a trustee, so acceptance is not what defeats Priya's claim.
• ELI-10: The misconception is thinking naming the money and the kid is enough. A trust needs bossy words that bind the keeper, not polite hopes.