In Oregon, the determination of whether a document constitutes a valid holographic will hinges on specific statutory requirements. ORS 112.235 outlines that a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction. However, for a holographic will, the entire will must be in the testator’s handwriting. This means that while a will can be partially in handwriting and partially typed, it will only be considered holographic if the entirety of the testamentary disposition is in the testator’s own hand. If any material part of the will, such as the dispositive provisions or the appointment of an executor, is typed or written by another person, it fails to meet the stringent requirements for a holographic will in Oregon. Such a document would then need to comply with the general formalities for attested wills, which typically involve witnesses. The core principle is that a holographic will is an exception to the witness requirement, and this exception is narrowly construed, demanding complete handwritten execution by the testator to be recognized as such.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Oregon. The primary beneficiary, Elara, has passed away before the trust’s termination date. The trust document specifies that upon Elara’s death, the remaining trust assets are to be distributed to her children. However, the trust document is silent on what happens if Elara dies without surviving issue. In Oregon, when a trust instrument does not specify an alternative beneficiary in the event of the primary beneficiary’s death without issue, the trust assets typically revert to the settlor’s estate. This is often referred to as a “gift-over” failing. ORS 112.395, while primarily concerning wills, articulates a general principle of lapse that can inform trust interpretation when the trust document is silent. Specifically, if a devisee dies before the testator and is a relative of the testator, and leaves issue surviving the testator, the devisee’s issue take the devise in place of the devisee, unless the will expresses a contrary intention. However, this statute is about wills and does not directly control trusts, but the principle of reversion to the estate is a common law doctrine that applies to trusts when no alternative disposition is made. In this case, since Elara died without issue and the trust document does not name a contingent beneficiary, the remaining trust corpus will pass as part of the settlor’s residuary estate, or if there is no residuary estate, then as intestate property of the settlor. Therefore, the trust assets are to be distributed to the settlor’s heirs at law, as determined by Oregon’s intestacy statutes.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Oregon as ORS Chapter 111, specifically addresses the rights of beneficiaries to information about a trust. ORS 115.175 outlines the trustee’s duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. This statute generally grants beneficiaries the right to receive a copy of the trust instrument, annual reports, and other information necessary to enforce their rights under the trust. However, this right is not absolute. A trustee may, in certain circumstances, have grounds to limit the information provided to a beneficiary, especially if such disclosure could be detrimental to the trust’s administration or the interests of other beneficiaries. For instance, if a beneficiary is acting in a manner that is adversarial or poses a threat to the trust’s assets, a trustee might seek court approval to restrict information flow, or rely on specific provisions within the trust document itself that grant the trustee discretion regarding disclosure. The key is that the beneficiary’s right to information is balanced against the trustee’s duty to administer the trust prudently and protect its assets and beneficiaries’ interests, and any limitation must be justifiable under Oregon law or the terms of the trust.

In Oregon, the concept of a “pour-over will” is a common estate planning tool. A pour-over will works in conjunction with a trust. Assets titled in the name of the decedent at the time of death that are not otherwise designated to pass by beneficiary designation or joint ownership, will pass according to the terms of the will. If the will directs these assets to be “poured over” into a trust, the will acts as a mechanism to transfer these probate assets into the trust. This ensures that assets not already in the trust are administered according to the trust’s terms. The validity of the trust into which assets are poured over is crucial. Oregon law, specifically ORS 112.232, addresses the validity of wills that pour assets into a trust, including trusts established during the testator’s lifetime or trusts created by the will itself. The key is that the trust must be identified in the will and its terms must be ascertainable. If the trust is amended or revoked after the will is executed, the will typically pours over into the trust as it exists at the time of the testator’s death, unless the will explicitly states otherwise. This preserves the testator’s intent for the assets to be managed and distributed according to the trust’s provisions. The pour-over will essentially acts as a safety net for assets that might not have been transferred into the trust during the testator’s lifetime.

The scenario involves a will that attempts to create a testamentary trust with a condition subsequent. In Oregon, for a testamentary trust to be valid, the testator must manifest an intention to create a trust, identify the trust property, identify the beneficiaries, and name a trustee. Furthermore, conditions precedent must be met for the interest to vest, while conditions subsequent can divest an already vested interest. In this case, the condition attached to the devise to Elara is a condition subsequent: Elara receives the property, but if she fails to reside in Oregon for at least six months each year after attaining majority, her interest is to be divested. The key legal question is whether this condition is void as against public policy or an unlawful restraint on alienation. Oregon law, like that of many states, generally upholds conditions subsequent in wills unless they are demonstrably against public policy or impose an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of property. A condition requiring residency in the state for a certain period annually is not typically considered an unlawful restraint on alienation nor inherently against public policy. It is a personal obligation tied to the enjoyment of the property. The will clearly expresses the testator’s intent to create a trust for Elara’s benefit, identifies the property (the lakefront cabin), identifies the beneficiary (Elara), and implicitly names the executor of the will as the trustee or indicates that the property will be held in trust. The condition is a personal one for Elara’s benefit and does not directly prohibit the transfer of the property itself, but rather affects Elara’s continued ownership. Therefore, the condition is likely to be upheld as a valid condition subsequent, and if Elara fails to meet it, the property would pass to the contingent beneficiaries as specified in the will.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. A trustee’s duty of loyalty requires them to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. This duty is fundamental and encompasses several sub-duties, including the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and the duty not to engage in self-dealing. Self-dealing occurs when a trustee enters into a transaction involving the trust assets for their own personal benefit, or for the benefit of a party with whom the trustee has a personal interest. Such transactions are often voidable by the beneficiaries, even if the trustee acted in good faith and the transaction was fair. Oregon law, consistent with the Uniform Trust Code, places a high burden on trustees to demonstrate the propriety of any transaction where their personal interests might conflict with their fiduciary duties. Beneficiaries have recourse to seek remedies such as the removal of the trustee, voiding the transaction, or recovering damages. The core principle is to prevent the trustee from profiting from their position at the expense of the trust’s beneficiaries.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, ORS 130.605 addresses the duty to inform and report by a trustee. This statute mandates that upon reasonable request, a trustee must provide beneficiaries with information about the trust and its administration. This includes a report on the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, including the source and amount of trustee compensation, and the manner in which the trustee has exercised discretion. The statute also specifies that a trustee shall respond to a beneficiary’s request for information within a reasonable time, not exceeding 60 days. Failure to comply with these reporting duties can lead to various remedies, including court intervention. The question probes the specific time frame within which a trustee must provide a requested report under Oregon law. The relevant statutory provision, ORS 130.605(2), states that a trustee shall respond to a beneficiary’s request for information within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed 60 days. Therefore, the maximum period allowed for a response is 60 days.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Oregon. The question hinges on the interpretation of ORS 112.395, which addresses the revocation of a will by a subsequent will or by an act of destruction. Specifically, it deals with the effect of a testator’s intent to revoke a portion of a will when that portion is integrated into a later, validly executed will. In this case, the testator executed a valid will in 2018, and subsequently executed a codicil in 2020. The codicil explicitly revokes a specific provision (Article V) of the 2018 will, which dealt with the establishment of a testamentary trust for the testator’s nephew, Elias. The codicil, however, does not provide an alternative disposition for the assets that would have funded this trust, nor does it republish the earlier will in its entirety. ORS 112.395(2) states that if a later will revokes an earlier will, but does not wholly do so, the earlier will is revoked only as to the inconsistent provisions. Here, the codicil is not a wholly new will but modifies the existing one. The revocation of Article V is an inconsistent provision. Since the codicil does not provide an alternative disposition for the assets designated for Elias’s trust and the revocation is specific, the assets intended for that trust will pass as if the testator died intestate with respect to those particular assets, unless other provisions of the 2018 will or codicil direct their disposition. The codicil’s effect is to remove the trust provisions, leaving those assets undisposed of by the will and codicil combined, thus passing by intestacy.

In Oregon, a will generally requires the testator’s signature and the signatures of two witnesses, each of whom signs in the testator’s presence. ORS 112.225 outlines these requirements. A holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, is valid in Oregon without witnesses. This exception is crucial for understanding the validity of wills that deviate from the standard execution formalities. The scenario describes a document that is entirely in Elias Thorne’s handwriting and is signed by him. This aligns with the definition of a holographic will under Oregon law, making it valid despite the absence of witnesses. The question tests the understanding of this specific exception to the general witnessing requirements for wills in Oregon. Therefore, the document is considered a valid will.

The scenario describes a situation involving a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. In Oregon, holographic wills are generally valid if they meet certain requirements. ORS 112.235 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is valid if signed by the testator. The key element here is that the entire will, including the date and dispositive provisions, must be in the testator’s handwriting. The question focuses on the validity of a will that has some typewritten portions, even if the critical dispositive provisions are handwritten. Oregon law does not recognize partially holographic wills where typewritten portions are integral to the will’s execution or dispositive intent in a way that cannot be separated. If the typewritten portions are merely supplementary or administrative, and the core testamentary intent and dispositive provisions are entirely in the testator’s hand and signed, it might be valid. However, the presence of a typewritten date and signature line, even if the signature itself is handwritten, can be problematic. The most common interpretation and application of the statute is that for a will to be considered holographic, *all* essential elements, including the date and signature, must be in the testator’s handwriting. Since the date and the signature line were typewritten, this would likely render the will invalid as a holographic will under Oregon law, even if the dispositive provisions were handwritten. The testator would have needed to execute the will as a formal witnessed will, or the entire document, including the date and signature, would need to be handwritten. The concept of “substantial compliance” with the formalities of a witnessed will is also relevant, but the question specifically asks about the validity as a holographic will. Given the typewritten elements, it fails the strict requirement for a holographic will.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration of trusts. A trustee’s duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust and its administration is a fundamental aspect of their fiduciary responsibility. This duty is codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 138.812. The statute specifies that upon reasonable request, a trustee must provide the current beneficiary with a report detailing the trust property, liabilities, receipts, disbursements, and trust transactions for the preceding fiscal year. Additionally, ORS 138.812(2) mandates that a trustee must also provide beneficiaries with a copy of the trust instrument itself, unless the trust instrument explicitly waives this requirement. The statute also clarifies that the trustee is not obligated to provide beneficiaries with copies of the trust instrument unless requested. Therefore, while a beneficiary has a right to receive a report, the trust instrument is only provided upon a specific request. The scenario states that Elara requested “all relevant trust documents,” which encompasses both the trust instrument and the annual accounting report. Consequently, the trustee is obligated to provide both.

In Oregon, a trust that provides for the accumulation of income or principal, or the postponement of the right of a beneficiary to receive income or principal, for a period longer than is permitted by the rule against perpetuities, is generally considered void to the extent of the excessive period. The Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (USRAP), adopted in Oregon, establishes a waiting period of 90 years for vesting of interests in trusts. If a trust instrument specifies a longer period, or if the terms of the trust inherently create a vesting period exceeding 90 years, the offending provisions are typically reformed or invalidated to comply with the statutory limit. Specifically, ORS 105.950 to 105.975, which codifies USRAP, allows for a period of 90 years as the maximum duration for the vesting of an interest in a trust. Therefore, a trust provision that mandates accumulation for 100 years would be void for the excess 10 years, or the trust might be reformed to terminate at the 90-year mark. The key principle is that the law seeks to prevent undue perpetuation of control over property.

In Oregon, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is governed by ORS 112.315. This statute addresses situations where a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will. Such a child is generally entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include instances where the testator had other living children or descendants at the time of executing the will and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted child, or where the testator otherwise made provision for the child by a transfer outside the will and intended that transfer to be in lieu of a testamentary provision. The key to determining if a child is pretermitted and thus entitled to a share is whether the omission was intentional or accidental. The statute presumes an unintentional omission unless the will itself indicates otherwise or extrinsic evidence clearly demonstrates the testator’s intent to disinherit. In this scenario, the will makes no mention of any after-born children, nor does it provide any indication that the omission of any future child was intentional. The testator’s estate is to be distributed according to the will, which only names existing beneficiaries. Therefore, any child born or adopted after the will’s execution, and not provided for, would be considered pretermitted. The share a pretermitted heir receives is calculated as if the testator died intestate with respect to that heir’s portion of the estate, meaning they would receive the share they would have been entitled to under Oregon’s intestacy laws. For a single pretermitted child, this would typically be the entire estate if there are no other heirs, or a proportionate share if there are other heirs. However, the question focuses on the *status* of the child as pretermitted, not the precise calculation of their share. The absence of any provision or mention in the will for a child born after its execution, without any indication of intent to disinherit, establishes the child as a pretermitted heir under Oregon law.

In Oregon, a testamentary trust is established by a will and comes into existence only upon the testator’s death and the admission of the will to probate. The trustee’s duties commence with the qualification and appointment by the court, typically after the probate process. The Oregon Uniform Trust Code, adopted with modifications, governs trusts. Specifically, ORS 112.225 addresses the creation of trusts by will, and ORS 114.265 pertains to the appointment of a personal representative. The administration of a testamentary trust is intertwined with the probate of the estate. The personal representative of the estate is responsible for marshalling assets, paying debts and taxes, and then distributing the remaining assets to the testamentary trust, as directed by the will and the court. The trustee then takes over the management and distribution of trust assets according to the terms of the trust. The question hinges on the precise point at which the testamentary trust’s independent existence and the trustee’s duties begin, which is after the estate administration and court approval, not immediately upon the testator’s death. The trustee does not have authority to act on trust assets before the will is probated and the trust is formally established and the trustee appointed.

The Oregon Trust Code, specifically ORS 130.365, addresses the revocation of a revocable trust. A trust is generally irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly state that it is revocable by the settlor. When a settlor retains the power to revoke a trust, that power can typically be exercised in any manner that provides clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent to revoke. This can be through a written instrument, an oral declaration (though less common and often requiring specific intent and notice), or even by conduct, provided the conduct clearly demonstrates the intent to revoke and is communicated in a manner that satisfies the trust’s requirements or statutory provisions for revocation. In Oregon, the settlor of a revocable trust can revoke or amend the trust by: (1) a will if the trust instrument provides for revocation by will; (2) a written instrument signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee; or (3) any other method specified in the trust instrument. The scenario describes a settlor who, while mentally competent, orally expresses a desire to revoke a trust to a third party who is not the trustee and not a beneficiary. This oral statement, not communicated to the trustee and not in writing as required by the trust instrument or ORS 130.365 for certain methods, would not be a valid revocation. The trust instrument’s requirement for a written instrument delivered to the trustee is the controlling factor here.

The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Oregon, addresses the issue of trustee discretion and the ability of beneficiaries to compel distributions. ORS 130.117 (formerly ORS 130.115) defines discretionary trusts. Under ORS 130.117(1), a trustee’s discretion is not limited by an ascertainable standard unless the terms of the trust expressly so provide. This means that if a trust instrument grants the trustee “sole and absolute discretion” to distribute income or principal for the beneficiary’s benefit, without referencing specific needs like health, education, maintenance, or support (the “HEMS” standard), the trustee’s decision is generally unchallengeable by the beneficiary, absent bad faith, fraud, or an abuse of discretion that amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty. ORS 130.117(2) clarifies that a trustee’s discretion is not considered limited by an ascertainable standard unless the terms of the trust expressly require distributions for the beneficiary’s benefit based on the beneficiary’s accustomed standard of living, or for health, education, maintenance, or support. In this scenario, the trust instrument grants the trustee absolute discretion for the beneficiary’s “general welfare,” which is broader than the HEMS standard and does not impose an objective, measurable limitation on the trustee’s power. Therefore, the beneficiary cannot compel a distribution solely on the basis that they believe it would be beneficial, as the trustee’s judgment regarding the beneficiary’s general welfare is paramount, provided it is exercised in good faith.

In Oregon, the concept of a “simultaneous death” clause in a will or trust is governed by the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act, codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 112. When determining the disposition of property in cases of simultaneous death, the Act presumes that one individual did not survive the other. Specifically, ORS 112.555 states that if the time of death of two or more beneficiaries is not established by clear and convincing evidence that one of them survived the other by 120 hours, their property is to be disposed of as if each of them had predeceased the other. This means that the property of the first to die passes as if they had no surviving beneficiary, and the property of the second to die passes as if they had no surviving beneficiary. In the scenario presented, the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Elara survived Finn by 120 hours triggers the application of the 120-hour survivorship presumption under Oregon law. Therefore, Elara’s estate would be administered as if she predeceased Finn, and Finn’s estate would be administered as if he predeceased Elara. This leads to Finn’s property passing to his heirs, and Elara’s property passing to her heirs, as if neither survived the other. The key legal principle is the statutory presumption designed to provide a clear framework for property distribution when survivorship is uncertain, preventing protracted litigation over the precise timing of deaths.

The scenario involves the concept of a revocable living trust and its treatment upon the grantor’s death, specifically concerning the powers of the successor trustee and the requirements for distributing assets. In Oregon, upon the death of the grantor of a revocable living trust, the trust generally becomes irrevocable. The successor trustee then assumes management and distribution responsibilities according to the trust instrument’s terms. A key aspect of trust administration is the trustee’s duty to identify and gather trust assets, pay valid debts and taxes of the decedent, and then distribute the remaining assets to the beneficiaries as specified. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Oregon (ORS Chapter 116), outlines these powers and duties. Specifically, ORS 116.151 grants a trustee the power to perform acts necessary to administer the trust, which includes paying debts and expenses. ORS 116.153 details the trustee’s duty to provide notice to beneficiaries and creditors. The trustee’s ability to sell or manage trust property to facilitate distribution is inherent in their administrative role. The trust document itself dictates the specific distribution plan. In this case, the trust instrument directs the trustee to sell the real property and divide the proceeds equally among the three named beneficiaries. The successor trustee has the authority to execute a deed to convey the property to a buyer, thus fulfilling the trust’s directive. This process does not require a separate probate administration for the real property if it was properly titled in the name of the trust during the grantor’s lifetime. The trustee’s actions are consistent with their fiduciary duties to carry out the grantor’s intent as expressed in the trust document.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a testator in Oregon. The trust instrument specifies that income from the trust corpus, which consists of a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, is to be distributed annually to the testator’s son, Elias, during his lifetime. Upon Elias’s death, the remaining trust principal is to be distributed to Elias’s children, who are currently minors. The trustee has the discretion to invade the principal for Elias’s health, education, maintenance, and support (HEMS). Oregon law, specifically ORS 112.225 concerning the revocation of wills by a subsequent instrument, and ORS 116.105 regarding the revocation of wills by operation of law, are relevant here. The question hinges on whether a change in the testator’s marital status after executing the will, without a new will or codicil, revokes the prior will and any provisions within it, including testamentary trusts. In Oregon, a will is generally not revoked by operation of law due to changes in marital status after execution, unlike some other jurisdictions that have specific provisions for divorce or annulment. The testator’s remarriage does not automatically revoke a previously validly executed will unless the will itself contains provisions that become inoperative or the testator’s intent clearly indicates revocation. In the absence of such provisions or intent, the will, including the testamentary trust, remains valid. Therefore, the testamentary trust for Elias would continue to be governed by the terms of the original will.

The scenario involves a testator, Elias Vance, who created a will in Oregon. His will explicitly states that his estate should be distributed equally among his three children: Anya, Ben, and Clara. However, Clara predeceased Elias, leaving behind a son, David. The core legal issue is whether Clara’s share of the estate will pass to her lineal descendant, David, under Oregon’s anti-lapse statute. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 112.395 governs the effect of a predeceased beneficiary in a will. This statute provides that if a beneficiary who is a lineal descendant of the testator dies before the testator, leaving lineal descendants, the beneficiary’s share passes to those lineal descendants. In this case, Clara is Elias’s lineal descendant, and she predeceased Elias. She also left a lineal descendant, her son David. Therefore, Clara’s share of Elias’s estate will pass to David by operation of law, preventing the share from lapsing and being distributed among the surviving residuary beneficiaries. The distribution would be Anya receiving one-third, Ben receiving one-third, and David receiving Clara’s one-third share.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state law, governs the administration of trusts. A key provision relates to the termination of a trust. ORS 131.405, which is part of Oregon’s Uniform Trust Code, addresses the termination of a trust by its beneficiaries. Specifically, if the purpose of the trust has been fulfilled or has become unlawful, impossible, or cannot be fulfilled, the trust may be terminated. Furthermore, if owing to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance would substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes, the court may modify or terminate the trust. The statute also allows for termination if all beneficiaries consent and the court concludes that the continuation of the trust is not necessary to continue any material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the trust was established to provide for Elara’s education, which has been completed. The trust’s original purpose is therefore fulfilled. The settlor’s intent was to fund education, and that objective has been met. Absent any indication that the settlor intended the trust to continue for other purposes after education is complete, and with the beneficiary’s consent, the trust can be terminated. The trustee’s concern about potential future needs not explicitly stated in the trust document does not, by itself, prevent termination when the primary purpose is achieved and all beneficiaries agree. The court’s role would be to ensure no material purpose remains unfulfilled, and the completion of Elara’s education strongly suggests the primary purpose is indeed fulfilled.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, adopted with some modifications, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. Specifically, ORS 130.157 addresses the modification or termination of a trust when the trustee has discretion to distribute income or principal to a beneficiary. Under ORS 130.157(1), a trustee may modify or terminate a trust if, in the trustee’s discretion, the trust’s purpose has been fulfilled or owing to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, the trustee’s continued administration of the trust would substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes. When a trustee has discretion to distribute income or principal to one or more beneficiaries, but no other person has the power to appoint a beneficiary, the trustee may modify or terminate the trust if the trustee determines that the modification or termination will benefit all of the qualified beneficiaries. The trustee must provide notice to all qualified beneficiaries of the proposed modification or termination. ORS 130.157(2) further clarifies that a trustee may also modify or terminate a trust by a nonjudicial settlement agreement under ORS 130.173 if the agreement includes terms for modification or termination and provides that the modification or termination will benefit all of the qualified beneficiaries, and all beneficiaries have received notice. The key here is the trustee’s discretion and the benefit to all qualified beneficiaries. The scenario involves a trust established by a settlor in Oregon for the benefit of their child, with discretionary distributions of income and principal. The child has a serious illness, and the trustee believes that modifying the trust to allow for direct payment of medical expenses, even if not explicitly provided for in the original trust document, would substantially fulfill the settlor’s intent of providing for the child’s well-being. This aligns with the trustee’s discretionary power and the principle of benefiting the qualified beneficiary. The trustee can proceed with this modification without court intervention, provided proper notice is given to all qualified beneficiaries as per ORS 130.157 and potentially ORS 130.173 if a nonjudicial settlement agreement is used. The modification is permissible because it directly addresses unforeseen circumstances (the child’s illness) and serves the settlor’s underlying purpose of beneficiary care, all within the trustee’s discretionary authority and for the benefit of the sole qualified beneficiary.

In Oregon, a testator can revoke a will by performing a physical act of destruction with the intent to revoke. This is codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 112.305. The act must be done by the testator or by someone else in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. The act must be one of burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying. Simply writing “canceled” on the will without any physical alteration to the document itself is generally insufficient to constitute a valid revocation by physical act under Oregon law. The intent to revoke must accompany the physical act. If the testator intended to revoke the will by writing “canceled” but did not physically alter the will in a way that would destroy its legal efficacy, the will remains valid. For example, if the will is a single sheet of paper and the testator writes “canceled” on the back, but the front remains intact and the writing does not affect the dispositive provisions, it is unlikely to be considered a valid revocation by physical act. The act must be an outward manifestation of the intent to destroy the will’s legal effect.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a will that is later challenged. In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Oregon law (ORS Chapter 111 et seq. and ORS Chapter 130 et seq.), governs trusts. A key principle is the irrevocability of a trust once established, particularly testamentary trusts which are created by a will and come into existence upon the testator’s death. While a trust can be modified or terminated under certain circumstances, such as by agreement of all beneficiaries and the trustee, or by court order if it’s no longer serving its purpose or is illegal, a unilateral revocation by the testator after their death is not permissible. The testator’s intent, as expressed in the will, is paramount. If the will clearly established a trust, and the testator has passed away, the trust is irrevocable by the testator. The beneficiaries’ consent to modification or termination is a separate matter from the testator’s ability to revoke post-death. Therefore, the surviving spouse and adult child cannot unilaterally revoke a properly established testamentary trust that is still serving its intended purpose, as the testator’s intent is fixed at death and the trust becomes irrevocable. The existence of a spendthrift provision further strengthens the trust’s protection against early termination or alienation of beneficial interests.

The scenario involves a testator’s intent to disinherit a specific heir, which is a fundamental aspect of estate planning. In Oregon, a will is the primary instrument for distributing an estate. While a testator has broad discretion in deciding who inherits their property, the validity and enforceability of disinheritance provisions are subject to certain legal principles. A clear and unambiguous statement of intent within the will is crucial. ORS 112.305 outlines the requirements for a valid will, including that it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two witnesses. The key to disinheritance is demonstrating a clear intent to exclude a particular person. This can be achieved by explicitly stating that the person is not to receive any portion of the estate, or by devising the entire estate to others without mentioning the disinherited individual. However, if the will is silent regarding a particular heir, or if the disinheritance clause is ambiguous, intestacy laws or pretermitted heir statutes might come into play, potentially allowing the disinherited individual to claim a share. In this case, Elara’s will explicitly states her intention to exclude her nephew, Jasper, from inheriting any part of her estate. This explicit exclusion, provided the will meets all statutory requirements for execution in Oregon, is generally effective. The presence of a residuary clause devising the remainder of the estate to her sister, Beatrice, further solidifies the intent that Jasper receives nothing. The question hinges on the testator’s intent and the clarity of its expression in the will. The core legal principle is that a testator’s clear intent to disinherit an heir, properly expressed in a validly executed will, will be honored under Oregon law.

In Oregon, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by state statute, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, ORS 130.405 addresses the effect of a trustee’s failure to provide a required report. When a trustee fails to provide a required trust report to a qualified beneficiary within 60 days after a proper request, that beneficiary may petition the court for an order compelling the trustee to provide the report. If the court finds that the trustee has failed to comply with the request, the court may order the trustee to provide the report and may also award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the requesting beneficiary. The statute does not automatically terminate the trustee’s powers or appoint a successor trustee solely for a single instance of delayed reporting without a court order. The beneficiary’s remedy is to seek judicial intervention to enforce the reporting obligation.

In Oregon, a trust that is established by a settlor for the benefit of specific beneficiaries, where the trustee has discretion over the distribution of income and principal, is generally considered a discretionary trust. The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified in Oregon, governs the administration of trusts. ORS 130.010(1)(e) defines a trust as a fiduciary relationship between a settlor, a trustee, and a beneficiary concerning property, wherein the trustee holds legal title to the trust property and is subject to fiduciary duties to deal with it for the benefit of the beneficiaries. The key characteristic of a discretionary trust, often referred to as a “spray” or “sprinkle” trust, is the trustee’s power to decide how much income or principal each beneficiary receives, or even whether to distribute anything at all. This flexibility is central to its nature. The scenario describes a trust where the trustee can “apportion and distribute the net income and principal among the beneficiaries in such amounts and proportions as the Trustee, in the Trustee’s sole discretion, deems advisable.” This language explicitly grants the trustee the power to exercise judgment regarding the timing and amounts of distributions, which is the hallmark of a discretionary trust. The trust is not a mandatory income trust because income is not required to be distributed. It is not a unitrust because there is no fixed payout percentage of the trust’s value. It is not a charitable trust as the beneficiaries are described as individuals. Therefore, the description most accurately fits a discretionary trust.

In Oregon, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by ORS 112.305. This statute provides protection for children born or adopted after a will is executed. If a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, and such child is not mentioned or provided for in the will, the child is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate. This share is generally equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. However, this protection does not extend to situations where the child was provided for in the will, or where it is clear from the will that the omission was intentional. The statute also does not apply if the testator had other children living when the will was executed and devised substantially all of their estate to the parent of the omitted child. In this specific scenario, the will was executed before Elara’s birth. Elara is the testator’s daughter and was not provided for in the will, nor was she mentioned. There is no evidence within the will that her omission was intentional. Therefore, Elara is a pretermitted heir under Oregon law and is entitled to a share of the estate as if the testator died intestate. To determine her intestate share, we look to ORS 113.025, which outlines distribution when there is no surviving spouse. In such cases, the estate passes to the issue of the decedent. Since Elara is the sole surviving issue, she would inherit the entire estate.

The scenario presented involves a testamentary trust established under an Oregon will. The question hinges on the application of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) regarding the duration and termination of such trusts, specifically when the beneficiary reaches a certain age. In Oregon, ORS 112.225 generally allows for the creation of trusts within a will. The critical statute for this scenario is ORS 116.165, which addresses the termination of trusts by a beneficiary. This statute permits a beneficiary to compel termination of a trust if the court finds that the purpose of the trust has been fulfilled or has become incapable of fulfillment, or that the continuance of the trust is not necessary to continue the trust’s material purposes. However, the trust instrument itself can specify conditions for termination, such as the beneficiary reaching a particular age. In this case, the will states the trust terminates when Anya reaches 30 years of age. Anya is currently 28. The trust is still active and its material purposes are not yet frustrated or fulfilled in a way that would allow for early termination under ORS 116.165 without regard to the age condition. Therefore, Anya must wait until she turns 30 for the trust to terminate according to the explicit terms of the will. The principle of testamentary freedom allows settlors to dictate the terms of their trusts, including termination provisions, as long as they are not contrary to law or public policy. The trust’s purpose, to provide for Anya’s financial stability until she reaches a mature age, is still being served.

In Oregon, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by ORS 112.305. This statute provides protection for children or descendants of the testator who are born or adopted after the execution of a will, and who are not provided for in the will, nor in the testator’s lifetime, nor accounted for by the testator’s intention expressed in the will or otherwise. Such an heir is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include instances where the omission was intentional and expressed in the will, or where the testator had other children and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted heir. The share is taken ratably from the portions of the estate given to the beneficiaries named in the will. In this scenario, Elara’s will was executed in 2018. Her son, Finn, was born in 2020, after the will’s execution. The will makes no provision for Finn and does not indicate any intention to disinherit him. Therefore, Finn qualifies as a pretermitted heir under Oregon law. His entitlement is to a share of Elara’s estate as if she had died without a will. The estate is valued at $800,000. If Elara had died intestate with Finn as her sole heir, Finn would inherit the entire estate. However, the will distributes specific portions to other beneficiaries. The will leaves $400,000 to her sister, Clara, and $400,000 to her friend, David. Finn is entitled to a share of the estate as if Elara died intestate, meaning he would receive the portion he would have gotten had there been no will. This share is taken ratably from the portions of the estate given to the beneficiaries named in the will. Since Finn is the sole issue and was omitted, he is entitled to the share he would have received if Elara died intestate. In this case, as the sole heir, he would receive the entire estate. This share is then taken ratably from the beneficiaries. Thus, Finn is entitled to the intestate share, which is the entire estate, meaning $800,000, to be satisfied by reducing Clara’s and David’s bequests proportionally. The question asks for the amount Finn is entitled to receive. Under ORS 112.305, the pretermitted heir is entitled to the share they would have received if the testator had died intestate. As the sole child, Finn would inherit the entire estate. This amount is then taken from the beneficiaries. Therefore, Finn is entitled to the full intestate share of the estate.