The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Ms. Eleanor Vance, executed a will in South Dakota. The will contains a specific bequest of a valuable antique grandfather clock to her nephew, Mr. Silas Croft. However, the will also contains a residuary clause that directs the remainder of her estate, after specific bequests and debts, to be distributed among her nieces and nephews in equal shares. Subsequently, Ms. Vance sells the grandfather clock during her lifetime and uses the proceeds to purchase a new automobile. This act of selling the specific property that was the subject of a specific bequest constitutes an ademption by extinction. In South Dakota, as in many other jurisdictions, when specifically devised property is sold or otherwise disposed of by the testator during their lifetime, the bequest of that property fails. The beneficiary is not entitled to the proceeds of the sale or to a substitute item unless the will explicitly provides for such a contingency. Since Ms. Vance sold the clock, it is no longer part of her estate at the time of her death. Therefore, the specific bequest to Mr. Silas Croft fails due to ademption. The value of the clock, or the proceeds from its sale, does not pass to Mr. Croft. Instead, the residuary clause of the will will govern the distribution of any remaining assets after the payment of debts and other expenses, including any proceeds from the sale of the clock that may still be in Ms. Vance’s possession. The residuary estate is to be divided equally among her nieces and nephews.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in South Dakota, provides a framework for trust administration. When a trust becomes irrevocable, typically upon the death of the settlor or after a specified period, the trustee’s duties and the beneficiaries’ rights are generally fixed. South Dakota law, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1B, governs the modification or termination of irrevocable trusts. A key provision allows for modification or termination with the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor, if the settlor is still alive and has capacity. If the settlor is deceased or incapacitated, modification or termination requires the consent of all beneficiaries and the approval of the court, unless the trust instrument itself provides for modification or termination under specific circumstances. The court’s approval is generally needed if the modification or termination would be inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the trust is irrevocable and the settlor is deceased. Therefore, to modify the trust’s terms regarding the distribution schedule, all beneficiaries must consent, and court approval is required unless the trust instrument explicitly permits such a modification without court intervention. The question asks about the permissible method of modification without requiring court approval. This would only be possible if the trust instrument itself granted this power, either directly to the beneficiaries or to a designated party, or if all beneficiaries and the settlor (if alive) agreed. Since the settlor is deceased, the primary avenues are all beneficiaries’ consent plus court approval, or the trust instrument itself allowing for modification without court intervention. The question focuses on a method that *avoids* court approval.

South Dakota law, specifically SDCL Chapter 29A-2, addresses the rights of a surviving spouse. Under SDCL 29A-2-201, a surviving spouse is entitled to an elective share of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is defined in SDCL 29A-2-202 and generally includes the decedent’s net probate estate, plus certain nonprobate transfers and amounts that the surviving spouse transferred to others during the marriage. The elective share amount is calculated based on the length of the marriage. For a marriage of 15 years or more, the surviving spouse is entitled to the full one-third of the augmented estate. The question describes a marriage of 25 years, which clearly exceeds the 15-year threshold. Therefore, the surviving spouse, Mrs. Albright, is entitled to one-third of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is calculated as the net probate estate ($500,000) plus the value of the joint tenancy property that passed to the decedent’s children ($300,000) and the value of the revocable trust that passed to the decedent’s siblings ($200,000). This totals $500,000 + $300,000 + $200,000 = $1,000,000. The elective share is one-third of this augmented estate. Thus, \( \frac{1}{3} \times \$1,000,000 = \$333,333.33 \).

In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. Specifically, SDCL § 55-1B-813 addresses the duty of a trustee to provide information to beneficiaries. This section outlines the types of information a trustee must provide, including a copy of the trust instrument, an inventory of trust property, and periodic accountings. The duty to provide information is ongoing and arises upon request from a qualified beneficiary. A qualified beneficiary is defined in SDCL § 55-1B-103(11) as a beneficiary whose interest is current or vested, or who would be entitled to distribution of all or part of the trust income or corpus if the trust were terminated immediately at the time of the determination. The statute also specifies the frequency of accountings, typically annually, unless the terms of the trust provide otherwise. Furthermore, the duty to inform extends to potential future beneficiaries if their interest is ascertainable. The trustee’s failure to provide requested information without reasonable cause can be grounds for a court to compel the trustee to act or even remove the trustee. The core principle is transparency and accountability to the beneficiaries regarding the trust’s administration and assets.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically South Dakota Codified Law § 55-1-36, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to respond to a beneficiary’s request for information. This statute outlines the permissible scope of a trustee’s disclosure obligations. A trustee must provide beneficiaries with information about the trust and its assets, including a copy of the trust instrument, unless the trust instrument expressly limits this right. However, the trustee is not obligated to provide a detailed accounting of all past transactions or every internal decision-making process unless specifically requested by a beneficiary and permitted by the trust terms or court order. The statute balances the beneficiary’s right to know with the trustee’s need to administer the trust efficiently and without undue burden. In this scenario, while a beneficiary has a right to the trust instrument and general information about the trust’s property, the statute does not mandate the provision of detailed investment rationale for every past decision, nor does it require the trustee to disclose their personal thoughts on the beneficiaries’ conduct. The trustee’s duty is to provide information relevant to the beneficiary’s interest in the trust, not to engage in a comprehensive personal or historical audit of every aspect of trust administration without a specific legal basis or trust provision.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL § 55-1-34, addresses the issue of a trustee’s liability for torts committed during the administration of the trust. Generally, a trustee is personally liable for torts committed in the course of administering a trust, except for a breach of duty. However, the code provides a mechanism for indemnification from the trust property if the trustee is not personally at fault for the tort. SDCL § 55-1-34 states that a trustee is liable for a tort committed during the administration of the trust if the trustee is liable to a third party for a tort committed in the course of administering the trust, the trustee is liable to the beneficiary for breach of trust for the same tort, or the trustee committed the tort. In such cases, the trustee is entitled to indemnification from the trust property if the trustee was not personally at fault for the tort. This means if the trustee acted reasonably and without negligence in the actions that led to the tort, they can seek reimbursement from the trust. The question hinges on whether the trustee’s actions constituted a breach of trust or personal fault. In this scenario, Ms. Albright, as trustee, was operating a vehicle as part of her duties, and the accident was caused by an unexpected mechanical failure of the vehicle, not by her negligence or a breach of her fiduciary duties. Therefore, she is entitled to indemnification from the trust estate for any liability she incurs due to the accident.

South Dakota law, specifically SDCL § 29A-2-605, addresses the concept of an “omitted spouse.” This statute provides protection for a spouse who marries after the execution of a will and is not provided for in that will, nor mentioned in any other way to show an intent to disinherit. Such a spouse is generally entitled to the same share of the estate that they would have received if the decedent had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the will indicates an intention to make no provision for the omitted spouse, or where the decedent made other provisions for the omitted spouse outside of the will that were intended to substitute for any inheritance rights. The statute is designed to prevent accidental disinheritance due to a testator’s oversight after marriage. In this scenario, the will was executed before the marriage to Elara. The will makes no mention of Elara, nor does it express an intent to disinherit her. There is no evidence of any other provision made for Elara outside the will that would indicate a substitution for inheritance. Therefore, Elara qualifies as an omitted spouse under South Dakota law and is entitled to her intestate share. The intestate share for a surviving spouse in South Dakota, when there are no surviving descendants of the decedent, is the entire estate.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, SDCL Chapter 43-28B addresses the trustee’s duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. Under SDCL § 43-28B-301, a trustee must keep the qualified beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust and its administration. This includes providing the current value of the trust property, the trust’s income and expenses, and any significant events affecting the trust. The statute also specifies that beneficiaries are entitled to a copy of the trust instrument itself upon request. Furthermore, SDCL § 43-28B-303 outlines the trustee’s duty to respond to reasonable requests for information from a beneficiary. A trustee’s failure to comply with these duties can lead to a beneficiary seeking court intervention to compel performance or even to remove the trustee. The question focuses on the specific information a beneficiary is entitled to upon request, which includes the trust instrument and an annual report detailing the trust’s financial status and administration.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1A, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. When a trustee is removed, the process for appointing a successor trustee is crucial for the continued administration of the trust. SDCL § 55-1A-706 outlines the permissible methods for successor trustee appointment. A court may appoint a successor trustee if no method is provided in the trust instrument, or if the designated trustee is unable or unwilling to serve. However, the trust instrument itself often specifies a procedure for appointing a successor. This procedure, if valid and followed, generally takes precedence over judicial appointment, provided it is not contrary to public policy or impossible to execute. In the absence of a trust provision for appointment and a willing designated successor, a court has the authority to appoint. The key is to determine if the trust instrument provides a mechanism and if that mechanism has been exhausted or is unworkable.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of estates. When a testator’s will is challenged, the court must determine its validity. A will can be contested on several grounds, including lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, or improper execution. The burden of proof typically rests with the contestant. However, if a contestant proves that the testator lacked capacity or was subject to undue influence, the burden may shift to the proponent of the will to prove its validity. The South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) § 29A-3-407 addresses the effect of a contest. If a contestant successfully proves that the testator lacked testamentary capacity or was subjected to undue influence, and the will is denied probate, any provision in the will that purports to disinherit an heir or restrict a beneficiary from contesting the will is generally ineffective as to that contestant. This is because the law aims to prevent the testator’s intent from being frustrated by the very means used to procure the will, especially when those means involve coercion or deception. The question revolves around the consequence of a successful will contest based on these specific grounds.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1, governs the administration of trusts. When a trustee resigns or is removed, the process for appointing a successor trustee is outlined. SDCL § 55-1-19 provides that if a trust has no trustee or an appointing trustee cannot be appointed by the trust instrument, the appointing authority may appoint a successor trustee. In South Dakota, absent a contrary provision in the trust instrument, the circuit court has the authority to appoint a successor trustee when the designated trustee is unable or unwilling to serve, or when the office becomes vacant. This is a fundamental aspect of trust administration ensuring the trust’s continued operation and the protection of beneficiaries’ interests. The court’s role is to facilitate the proper execution of the trust’s terms and to uphold fiduciary duties. The South Dakota Probate Code, while dealing with estates, does not directly govern the appointment of successor trustees for trusts, which fall under the Uniform Trust Code. Similarly, the South Dakota Uniform Probate Code (UPC) primarily addresses the administration of decedents’ estates, not the ongoing administration of pre-existing trusts. The South Dakota Business Corporation Act is irrelevant to trust administration.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. Specifically, SDCL Chapter 43-28B addresses the modification and termination of trusts. A trust may be terminated or modified by the consent of all beneficiaries if the continuation of the trust is not necessary to continue the accomplishment of a material purpose. Alternatively, a trustee may modify or terminate a trust if the trust’s purposes become unlawful, contrary to public policy, or impossible to achieve. Another avenue for modification or termination exists if, due to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, modification or termination will further the purposes of the trust. The value of the trust property is also a consideration; if the value of the trust property is insufficient to justify the cost of administration, a court may order termination. In this scenario, the trust’s purpose was to provide for the settlor’s education and then distribute the remaining corpus to a specific charity. The educational purpose has been fulfilled. The remaining corpus is substantial, and the charity is still in existence and capable of receiving the distribution. The trust document does not prohibit early termination upon fulfillment of the educational purpose. Therefore, since the material purpose of education has been accomplished and the remaining corpus is not insignificant, the trustee can proceed with the termination and distribution to the named charitable beneficiary without needing court intervention or beneficiary consent, as this aligns with the trust’s ultimate objective. The trustee’s action is consistent with the principles of trust administration under South Dakota law, which allows for termination when a material purpose has been achieved.

South Dakota law, specifically SDCL Chapter 29A-2, governs the creation and effect of wills. A will must be signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be signed by at least two individuals, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after the testator signed or acknowledged the will. These witnesses must also sign in the testator’s conscious presence. The purpose of witness signatures is to attest to the testator’s capacity and the voluntary nature of the signing. If a will is not properly executed according to these statutory requirements, it may be deemed invalid. However, South Dakota law does provide for the possibility of a “harmless error” review under SDCL 29A-2-503, which allows a court to uphold a will that does not strictly comply with execution formalities if there is clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will. This provision aims to prevent unintended intestacy due to minor technical errors. In the scenario provided, the will was signed by the testator and one witness, but not a second witness. This defect means the will does not meet the standard execution requirements. Without the second witness signature, the will is presumptively invalid. The harmless error review is the legal mechanism that could potentially validate the will despite this deficiency, provided the stringent evidentiary standard is met.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1B, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trust instrument is silent on a specific matter, the Code provides default rules. In the scenario presented, the trust instrument does not specify how to handle a beneficiary’s incapacitation. South Dakota law, under SDCL § 55-1B-509, addresses this by allowing the trustee to distribute the beneficiary’s share to a custodian for the beneficiary under the South Dakota Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (SDCL Chapter 55-10) or to the beneficiary’s agent under a durable power of attorney, or to a guardian or conservator for the beneficiary. The question asks about the trustee’s options when a beneficiary becomes incapacitated and the trust is silent on the matter. The trustee can appoint a guardian or conservator for the beneficiary, distribute the share to a custodian under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, or distribute to the beneficiary’s agent under a durable power of attorney. Therefore, all these actions are permissible under South Dakota law.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1, governs the administration of trusts. When a trustee resigns or is removed, the process for appointing a successor trustee is outlined. SDCL § 55-1-20 addresses the court’s role in appointing a successor trustee when the trust instrument does not provide a method or when the designated method fails. The statute emphasizes that the court should consider the settlor’s intent and the beneficiaries’ best interests. In this scenario, the trust instrument is silent on successor trustees, and the named individual, Bartholomew, has declined. Therefore, the court must step in. SDCL § 55-1-20(a) states that if the trust has no trustee or if a trustee has no successor, the vacancy shall be filled by a person appointed by the court. The court’s primary duty is to appoint a trustee who will faithfully administer the trust according to its terms and the applicable law, prioritizing the beneficiaries’ welfare and the settlor’s original intent. This involves evaluating potential candidates based on their competence, integrity, and suitability to manage the trust assets and fulfill the trust’s purpose.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code (SDCL Chapter 43-42) governs the creation and administration of trusts. Specifically, SDCL § 43-42-301 addresses the revocation of a revocable trust. A trust is generally revocable by the settlor unless its terms expressly provide that it is irrevocable. For a revocable trust, revocation can be accomplished by the settlor in any manner that manifests clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent to revoke. This can be done by a later will, a codicil, or an instrument of revocation. The key is that the method used must clearly demonstrate the settlor’s intent to terminate the trust. If the trust instrument specifies a particular method of revocation, that method must be followed, or another method that provides clear and convincing evidence of intent. In this scenario, the trust instrument requires revocation by a written instrument delivered to the trustee. Agnes’s last will and testament, which is a written instrument, clearly states her intent to revoke the trust and is delivered to the trustee. This satisfies the requirement for revocation under South Dakota law, even if the trust instrument also permitted revocation by a separate written instrument delivered to the trustee. The will serves as a written instrument manifesting clear and convincing intent to revoke, and its delivery to the trustee fulfills the statutory requirement. Therefore, the trust is effectively revoked.

The scenario describes a situation where a trust was established with a specific purpose and funding. When the original purpose of the trust becomes impossible or impractical to fulfill, the doctrine of cy pres may be applied. Cy pres, meaning “as near as possible,” allows a court to redirect the trust’s assets to a charitable purpose that approximates the original settlor’s intent as closely as possible. In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL § 55-1-34, governs the application of cy pres. This statute allows for the modification or termination of a trust if, due to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance in the manner set forth would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes. The court can then apply the trust property to a charitable purpose that “substantially resembles” the original purpose. Given that the original recipient, the “Prairie Rose Children’s Home,” has ceased operations and its assets have been absorbed by a larger entity with a broader mission, the trust’s original specific purpose is no longer achievable. The question asks about the appropriate legal mechanism to address this situation. The doctrine of cy pres is the established legal principle for redirecting charitable trust assets when the original purpose fails. Other options are less fitting: a resulting trust typically arises when an express trust fails for reasons other than impossibility of purpose or when the settlor retains an interest; a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed to prevent unjust enrichment, not to redirect charitable funds; and a gift over to a specific named beneficiary is a provision for an alternative beneficiary, which is not described in this scenario. Therefore, cy pres is the correct doctrine to consider for the redirection of these charitable trust funds in South Dakota.

In South Dakota, the concept of an “after-acquired property” clause in a will refers to a provision where a testator attempts to devise property that they do not own at the time of executing the will but may acquire later. South Dakota law, specifically SDCL § 29A-2-604, addresses the effect of a will on property acquired after its execution. This statute generally provides that a will disposes of property the testator owns at death that the testator is entitled to, including property acquired after the execution of the will. This is consistent with the general principle that a will speaks as of the date of the testator’s death. Therefore, if a testator executes a will that includes a clause specifically devising a particular parcel of real estate, and subsequently acquires that exact parcel of real estate before their death, the devise will be effective. The key is that the testator must own the property at the time of death and be entitled to it, and the will must clearly indicate the intent to devise such property. The question hinges on the testator’s intent and the legal effect of acquiring property after the will’s execution, which is generally permissible under South Dakota law as long as the property is owned at death.

The core issue here is the effect of a pretermitted heir statute in South Dakota. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 29A-4 addresses omitted heirs. Specifically, SDCL 29A-4-101 governs omitted children. Under this statute, if a testator fails to provide in the will for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, and the omission was not intentional and not provided for by any transfer outside the will, the omitted child receives a share in the estate. The share is what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, distributed from the portion of the estate not passing to a surviving spouse or to devisees who were not members of the testator’s family and who were not specifically named in the will. However, SDCL 29A-4-102 provides exceptions. One significant exception is if it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. In this scenario, the will of Mr. Abernathy explicitly states that he intentionally made no provision for any children born after the will’s execution. This explicit statement demonstrates intent to disinherit any after-born children. Therefore, the pretermitted heir statute would not apply to grant a share to Elara, as the will clearly indicates an intentional omission. The will’s provisions for his wife, Beatrice, and his existing children would remain undisturbed by Elara’s birth. The estate would pass according to the terms of the will, with no intestate share for Elara.

The scenario presented involves a will that disposes of property in a manner that could be interpreted as creating a life estate with a remainder interest. In South Dakota, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the interpretation of wills. When a will grants a beneficiary the use and enjoyment of property for their lifetime, with the remaining property to pass to another upon the beneficiary’s death, this typically creates a life estate. The key here is the language “use and enjoy the rents and profits therefrom for her natural life, and upon her death, the same shall pass to her children, share and share alike.” This language explicitly limits the beneficiary’s interest to her lifetime and directs the disposition of the property thereafter. Such a provision is generally recognized as creating a life estate in the named beneficiary, with a vested remainder interest in her children, subject to the condition of survivorship if the remainder is contingent. However, the phrasing “upon her death, the same shall pass to her children” generally indicates a vested remainder in the children who are alive at the time of the testator’s death, unless the will specifies otherwise or the context clearly indicates a contingent remainder. South Dakota law, specifically SDCL § 43-4-1, defines a life estate as a freehold interest in land, the duration of which is measured by the life of a person. SDCL § 43-3-1 through § 43-3-7 further elaborate on estates in property. The language in the will does not grant the life tenant the power to sell or convey the principal of the estate, which would suggest a fee simple absolute with a precatory gift over. Instead, it focuses on the “use and enjoy the rents and profits,” which are the hallmarks of a life estate. Therefore, the interest created is a life estate in Elara, with a remainder interest in her children.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically regarding the modification or termination of trusts, outlines several pathways. Under SDCL § 55-3-23, a trust can be terminated or modified by the consent of all beneficiaries if the continuation of the trust is not necessary to continue its material purposes. In this scenario, both Clara and Beatrice, as the sole current and remainder beneficiaries, would need to consent. The trust’s purpose, to provide income to Clara and then pass the principal to Beatrice, is still material as long as Clara is alive and receiving income. However, if the trust instrument itself does not prohibit modification or termination, and both beneficiaries agree, and the court finds that the purpose has been fulfilled or can be achieved by other means, termination is possible. SDCL § 55-3-25 provides for modification or termination by court order if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled, or owing to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes. In this case, the trust’s purpose is still active. SDCL § 55-3-26 allows modification or termination if a material purpose of the trust no longer exists, even without beneficiary consent, if the trustee and beneficiaries agree. However, without beneficiary consent, modification or termination is generally difficult. The question asks about the *most* appropriate action based on the provided information. Given that the trust’s material purpose of providing income to Clara is still being fulfilled, and Beatrice is the remainder beneficiary, the trust is not yet at a point where its purpose is defeated or fulfilled in a way that automatically allows termination. Therefore, modification or termination would likely require the consent of both beneficiaries and potentially court approval if the trustee does not agree or if the court deems it necessary. The most direct and universally applicable provision for modification or termination when all beneficiaries agree and the purpose can be achieved otherwise is found in SDCL § 55-3-23.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL § 55-1-35, governs the enforceability of trust provisions against creditors. This statute establishes a spendthrift provision as a valid means to protect trust assets from the claims of beneficiaries’ creditors. A spendthrift provision is a clause in a trust instrument that restricts the beneficiary’s ability to anticipate or assign their interest in the trust. Under South Dakota law, a spendthrift provision generally prevents a beneficiary’s creditor from reaching the income or principal of the trust until it is distributed to the beneficiary. This protection is robust and applies to most types of creditors, including those seeking to satisfy judgments for personal debts or contractual obligations. However, there are statutory exceptions to this protection, such as claims for child support, spousal support, or certain government claims. In the scenario presented, the trust instrument contains a valid spendthrift provision, and the creditor is a judgment creditor seeking to satisfy a personal debt arising from a business loan. Since the debt does not fall under any of the statutory exceptions to spendthrift protection in South Dakota, the spendthrift provision is enforceable against this creditor. Therefore, the creditor cannot reach the trust assets to satisfy the judgment.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of estates. When a will is offered for probate, the court must determine its validity. A crucial aspect of this is whether the will was properly executed according to South Dakota law. SDCL § 29A-2-502 outlines the requirements for a validly executed will. It mandates that the will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or in the testator’s name by another individual in the testator’s conscious presence and at the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be signed by at least two individuals, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after the testator’s signing or acknowledgment of the signature or of the will. These witnesses must have witnessed the testator’s signing or acknowledgment of the signature or of the will. The statute also addresses interested witnesses; an interested witness does not automatically invalidate the will, but it creates a presumption of undue influence, duress, or fraud regarding the devise to that witness, which can be rebutted. In the scenario provided, the will was signed by the testator and by two witnesses who were present at the time of signing and who observed the testator’s signature. Critically, the fact that one of the witnesses was also a beneficiary does not, under South Dakota law, render the entire will invalid. Instead, it raises a rebuttable presumption concerning the devise to that specific witness. The devise to the witness is not void unless the presumption cannot be rebutted. Therefore, the will itself remains validly executed, and the question of the witness’s inheritance is a separate matter to be resolved based on the presumption.

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL § 55-1-37, addresses the definition of a “qualified beneficiary.” A qualified beneficiary is generally defined as a living beneficiary who, on the date the beneficiary’s qualification is determined, is either a distributee of the trust, or would be entitled to receive income or corpus from the trust, or would receive a distribution of property if the trust were terminated immediately on that date. Furthermore, a qualified beneficiary includes a person who, on the date the beneficiary’s qualification is determined, is a beneficiary entitled to a mandatory distribution of income or principal, or a beneficiary who would receive a distribution of property upon the termination of the trust or upon the death of a person not described in SDCL § 55-1-37(2)(A) or (B). SDCL § 55-1-37(2)(A) refers to the current trustee, and SDCL § 55-1-37(2)(B) refers to any person who has a power to appoint a trustee. In this scenario, Elara is the current income beneficiary. Upon her death, the trust corpus is to be distributed to her children. Therefore, on the date of qualification, Elara’s children are contingent beneficiaries who would receive the corpus if the trust terminated immediately after Elara’s interest ceased. They are not current income beneficiaries, nor are they entitled to a mandatory distribution of income or corpus during Elara’s lifetime. However, they are the beneficiaries who would receive a distribution of property upon the termination of the trust. The question asks who would be considered a qualified beneficiary if the trust were to terminate immediately after the current income beneficiary’s death. Since Elara is the current income beneficiary, and upon her death the corpus goes to her children, her children would be the ones to receive the property upon termination. Therefore, they fit the definition of qualified beneficiaries under SDCL § 55-1-37.

In South Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code, adopted with some modifications, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. When a trustee’s actions are challenged, the court’s primary concern is whether the trustee has breached their fiduciary duties. These duties include the duty of loyalty, the duty of care, and the duty to administer the trust according to its terms. SDCL § 55-2-1 outlines the general duty of a trustee to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. SDCL § 55-3-2 further details the duty of care, requiring a trustee to administer the trust as a reasonably prudent person would in like circumstances. When a trustee delegates a duty, as allowed under SDCL § 55-2-10, the trustee must exercise reasonable care in selecting the agent, establishing the scope and terms of the delegation, and reviewing the agent’s actions. If a trustee fails to meet these standards, they may be held personally liable for any losses incurred by the trust. The question asks about the proper course of action when a trustee delegates investment management. Under South Dakota law, a trustee can delegate investment and advisory functions but must still exercise reasonable care in selecting the agent and monitoring their performance. Therefore, the trustee cannot simply abdicate responsibility; they must actively oversee the delegated task.

The scenario describes a testamentary trust created within a will. Under South Dakota law, specifically related to the administration of estates and trusts, a trust created by a will is considered a testamentary trust. The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and potentially modified by South Dakota, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a will is admitted to probate, and it contains provisions for a trust, the trust’s existence and terms are established through the probate process. The trustee’s duties commence upon the testator’s death and the qualification of the trustee, typically after the will is admitted to probate and letters of trusteeship are issued. The trust assets are generally transferred to the trustee from the personal representative of the estate after estate administration and any applicable estate taxes or debts are settled. Therefore, the trust is legally established and operational once the will becomes effective through probate and the trustee is appointed and qualified, enabling them to begin managing the trust assets according to the will’s provisions. This process ensures that the testator’s intent is carried out under judicial supervision, especially during the initial stages of trust administration.

In South Dakota, a will is generally considered revoked if it is destroyed with the intent to revoke. This is codified in South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 29A-2-507, which states that a will or any part thereof is revoked by physical act of the testator or by order of another person in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction. The critical element here is the testator’s intent to revoke. If Elias tore his will into pieces intending to cancel it, this act, coupled with his intent, constitutes a valid revocation under South Dakota law, even if he later changes his mind or wishes he hadn’t done it. The subsequent finding of the torn pieces does not revive the will unless it is re-executed or republished with the formalities required for a valid will. Therefore, the original act of destruction with intent to revoke is legally effective.

In South Dakota, the determination of a surviving spouse’s elective share is governed by SDCL Chapter 29A-2, Part 2. The elective share is a statutory right that allows a surviving spouse to take a portion of the deceased spouse’s estate, regardless of what the will provides. The amount of the elective share is calculated based on the augmented estate, which includes not only the probate estate but also certain nonprobate transfers made by the decedent. Under SDCL 29A-2-202, the augmented estate is generally defined as the sum of the value of the decedent’s probate estate, plus the value of the decedent’s interest in property in which the decedent had an ownership interest at the time of death, plus the value of property transferred by the decedent during marriage to a person other than the surviving spouse to the extent the decedent retained power to revoke or consume the property, and certain other transfers made within one year of death. The elective share percentage is determined by the length of the marriage. For a marriage of 15 years or more, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50% of the augmented estate. For shorter durations, the percentage is lower, increasing by 3% for each full year of marriage beyond 3 years, up to the 50% maximum. In this scenario, the marriage lasted 22 years. Therefore, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50% of the augmented estate. The augmented estate is calculated as the sum of the probate estate ($250,000), the decedent’s interest in jointly held property with a third party ($100,000), and the value of the revocable trust ($400,000). Thus, the augmented estate is \( \$250,000 + \$100,000 + \$400,000 = \$750,000 \). The elective share is 50% of this amount. So, the surviving spouse’s elective share is \( 0.50 \times \$750,000 = \$375,000 \).

The South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, specifically SDCL Chapter 55-1B, governs the modification and termination of trusts. Under SDCL § 55-1B-412, a trustee may proceed with a proposed trust modification or termination if, within 60 days after providing notice to qualified beneficiaries, the trustee receives written consent from all beneficiaries whose consent is required for the modification or termination, or if no beneficiary objects to the proposed action. SDCL § 55-1B-411 outlines the procedure for a trustee to seek court approval for a modification or termination if beneficiary consent cannot be obtained or if the trustee believes the proposed action is not in the best interests of all beneficiaries. In this scenario, the trustee provided notice of the proposed termination to all qualified beneficiaries. One beneficiary, Mr. Abernathy, objected in writing within the 60-day period. Since there was an objection, the trustee cannot unilaterally proceed with the termination under SDCL § 55-1B-412. The trustee’s next available legal recourse, as provided by the South Dakota Uniform Trust Code, is to petition the court for approval of the proposed termination, demonstrating that the termination is consistent with the intent of the settlor and is in the best interests of the beneficiaries, or that it is otherwise permitted by law.

The scenario involves a will that was executed in South Dakota. The testator, Ms. Eleanor Vance, domiciled in South Dakota at the time of her death, created a will that stipulated her entire estate be distributed to her nephew, Mr. Thomas Vance, with a specific provision for a life estate in her South Dakota homestead to her sister, Ms. Beatrice Vance. The crucial element here is the validity of the will under South Dakota law, particularly concerning the formalities of execution. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 29A-2, specifically SDCL § 29A-2-502, outlines the requirements for a validly executed will. This statute generally requires the will to be signed by the testator, or by another individual in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and to be signed by at least two individuals each of whom witnessed either the signing of the instrument or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will. In this case, the will was signed by Ms. Vance and witnessed by two individuals, Mr. Arthur Finch and Ms. Clara Bell. Both witnesses were present at the time of signing and signed the will in Ms. Vance’s presence. This aligns with the statutory requirements for a valid will in South Dakota. The subsequent revocation of the will by Ms. Vance through a later oral declaration, without a written instrument or physical act of destruction as required by SDCL § 29A-2-507, does not render the original will invalid. The original will, having met the execution requirements, remains valid unless properly revoked according to South Dakota law. Therefore, the will is valid and will be probated.