In Montana, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in that will. Montana law, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-321, addresses the rights of such heirs. A child born or adopted after a will is executed is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the omission was intentional and evident from the will itself, or where the testator had other children and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted child. In this scenario, Elara executed her will in 2015, devising her entire estate to her sister, Beatrice. In 2018, Elara adopted her nephew, Cassian. Cassian is therefore a child adopted after the execution of the will. Elara’s will does not mention Cassian, nor does it indicate an intention to disinherit him. Furthermore, Elara had no other children at the time of her death. Consequently, Cassian qualifies as a pretermitted heir under Montana law. As such, Cassian is entitled to receive the same share of Elara’s estate that he would have received if Elara had died intestate, which would be a one-half share of the estate, as she is survived by a sibling (Beatrice). The remaining half would pass to Beatrice according to the terms of the will.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Montana law, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. Specifically, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-604 addresses the modification or termination of a trust. This statute allows a trustee to petition the court to modify or terminate a trust if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled, or owing to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, its continued existence will substantially impair its economic benefit. Alternatively, if all beneficiaries consent and the court concludes that the continuation of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose of the trust, or if the purpose of the trust has been fulfilled, the trust may be modified or terminated. In this scenario, the settlor, Elara, is still alive, which is a crucial factor. Montana law, consistent with the Uniform Trust Code, generally permits a settlor to revoke or amend a revocable trust. Since Elara created the trust as revocable and has not relinquished her right to amend or revoke it, she retains the power to do so. The trustee’s duty is to administer the trust according to its terms and the settlor’s instructions, especially when the settlor is alive and has retained such powers. Therefore, the trustee must comply with Elara’s direction to terminate the trust. There is no requirement for court approval for a settlor to revoke a revocable trust in Montana, provided the trust instrument permits it and the settlor is alive and competent. The statute regarding modification or termination by beneficiaries or the court (MCA § 72-38-604) is not applicable here because the settlor is alive and the trust is revocable, giving her the unilateral power to direct its termination.

In Montana, a statutory will is a will that is executed in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Montana Uniform Probate Code, specifically concerning the formalities of execution. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-522 outlines the requirements for a valid will, which generally include being in writing, signed by the testator or on their behalf by another person in the testator’s presence and at their direction, and signed by at least two individuals each of whom witnesses either the signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of that signature or of the will. The concept of “substantial compliance” is a judicial interpretation that allows a will to be admitted to probate even if it does not perfectly meet all statutory formalities, provided there is clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will. This doctrine, however, is applied cautiously and requires a strong showing of testamentary intent. A will that is not properly attested by two witnesses, as required by MCA § 72-2-522, would typically fail unless it qualifies as a holographic will (written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, MCA § 72-2-523) or the doctrine of substantial compliance can be invoked. In the absence of a holographic will, a will lacking the required witness signatures would be considered invalid in Montana, as the statutory formalities are designed to prevent fraud and ensure the testator’s intent. Therefore, a document signed by the testator but lacking any witness signatures would not meet the requirements for a statutory will in Montana, nor would it qualify as a holographic will if it contains any printed or typed portions. The core principle is that the testator’s intent must be demonstrated through a document that adheres to the statutory formalities or is proven to be a holographic will.

Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted in Montana, addresses the issue of trust modification or termination when a trust’s purpose becomes unlawful, impossible, or impracticable. MCA § 72-38-411 provides that a trustee may modify or terminate a trust if, due to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance would substantially impair the trust’s purpose. The statute allows for judicial modification or termination under similar circumstances, or if the trust’s value is insufficient to justify the cost of administration. Another relevant provision is MCA § 72-38-414, which permits modification of a trust to achieve the settlor’s tax objectives if it does not alter the beneficial interests. In the given scenario, the trust’s purpose, to provide ongoing support for a specific breed of show dogs, has become impracticable due to the extinction of that breed. This situation clearly falls under the purview of circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, making continued administration of the trust substantially impair its original purpose. Therefore, the trustee has the authority to modify or terminate the trust. Termination would be appropriate given the impossibility of fulfilling the purpose. Upon termination, Montana law, as generally applied in estate and trust administration, dictates that any remaining trust property would typically pass to the beneficiaries designated in the trust instrument for the disposition of remaining assets, or if not specified, according to the settlor’s residuary estate. If no such provisions exist, it would revert to the settlor’s estate or heirs. Given the impracticality and the extinction of the beneficiary class (the specific breed of dogs), the most reasonable course of action, consistent with Montana trust law principles, is to terminate the trust and distribute the remaining assets as if the trust had never been created or according to any contingent remainder provisions.

The Montana Uniform Trust Code, specifically under MCA § 72-33-601, defines a trust as a fiduciary relationship between a settlor, a trustee, and a beneficiary. The settlor is the person who creates the trust, the trustee is the person or entity holding legal title to the trust property and administering it according to the trust’s terms, and the beneficiary is the person for whom the trust is administered. A key aspect of trust creation in Montana, as with most jurisdictions, is the intent to create a trust. This intent is typically demonstrated through a written instrument, though oral trusts for personal property are permissible under certain circumstances. The trust property, or corpus, must be identifiable and sufficiently described. The trustee must have duties that are active and not merely passive. The beneficiary must be definite and ascertainable, meaning the trustee must know who the beneficiaries are or have a clear method for identifying them. The question hinges on the absence of a specific beneficiary designation, which is a fundamental requirement for a valid trust. Without a designated beneficiary, the trust fails for indefiniteness. Therefore, the purported trust would be considered void.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Montana law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, when a trustee resigns or is removed, Montana law, particularly Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-705, outlines the process for appointing a successor trustee. The primary principle is to follow the terms of the trust instrument itself. If the trust instrument specifies a method for appointing a successor, that method must be adhered to. If the trust instrument is silent on the matter, or if the designated appointer is unable or unwilling to act, then Montana law provides a hierarchy of persons or entities who can make the appointment. This hierarchy generally starts with the beneficiaries who are of legal age and competent. If the beneficiaries cannot agree, or if there are no qualified beneficiaries, the court may appoint a successor trustee. In this scenario, the trust instrument clearly designates the senior partner of the law firm “Miller & Associates” as the successor trustee. This provision in the trust instrument takes precedence over any default statutory provisions. Therefore, the senior partner of that specific law firm is the rightful successor trustee, irrespective of whether other beneficiaries exist or agree.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Montana. The primary issue is the enforceability of a spendthrift provision within this trust. Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code (MCA § 72-38-502), generally upholds spendthrift provisions, which protect a beneficiary’s interest from the claims of creditors. A spendthrift provision is generally considered valid if it prohibits the voluntary or involuntary transfer of the beneficiary’s interest. However, there are statutory exceptions to the enforceability of spendthrift provisions. These exceptions include claims for child support, spousal support, and certain governmental claims. In this case, the creditor is a private individual seeking to recover a judgment for a debt unrelated to child support, spousal support, or governmental services. Therefore, the spendthrift provision is likely to be fully enforceable against this particular creditor’s claim. The trust’s terms explicitly state that the beneficiary cannot alienate or encumber their interest, and this provision is designed to shield the trust assets from such claims. The fact that the judgment is for a substantial amount does not, in itself, override the spendthrift protection afforded by Montana law. The trustee’s duty is to administer the trust according to its terms and applicable law, which includes defending against improper creditor claims against spendthrift trust assets.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Montana law, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. Specifically, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-601 addresses the modification or termination of a trust by consent of the settlor and beneficiaries. For a trust to be modified or terminated by the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor, the settlor must have the capacity to do so. Capacity generally means being of sound mind and legal age. The scenario describes Elara, who created a revocable trust. Upon her incapacitation, her daughter, Clara, was appointed as her guardian. A guardian’s authority is generally limited to managing the ward’s personal care and financial affairs, and they typically do not possess the power to consent to the modification or termination of a trust created by the ward unless specifically authorized by a court order or the terms of the trust instrument itself, or if the trust instrument grants such authority to the guardian. Montana law, under MCA § 72-38-601, requires the *settlor’s* consent. A guardian, acting in a representative capacity, cannot unilaterally substitute their consent for the settlor’s personal consent, especially for actions that fundamentally alter the trust’s existence or terms, without explicit judicial authorization. Therefore, Clara, as Elara’s guardian, cannot consent to the termination of Elara’s trust without a court order specifically granting her that authority.

The scenario involves the concept of a testamentary trust created within a will, specifically addressing the impact of a codicil on its provisions. Montana law, like many jurisdictions, allows for amendments to wills through codicils. A codicil is a legal document that amends, rather than replaces, a previously executed will. It must be executed with the same formalities as a will. In this case, the original will established a trust for Elara, managed by a trustee. The codicil, while changing the beneficiary of a specific tangible personal property item, did not revoke or alter the trust provisions. Therefore, the trust established in the original will remains operative for Elara’s benefit, and the distribution of the residue of the estate, after specific bequests and the disposition of the antique clock, will flow into this trust as originally intended. The codicil’s effect is limited to the specific item it addresses. The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Montana, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts, and absent any language in the codicil explicitly revoking or modifying the trust, the original trust provisions continue to control the disposition of the residue.

The scenario involves a will that was executed in Montana. Montana law governs the interpretation and validity of wills for testators domiciled in Montana at the time of their death. The Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified by Montana statutes, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 72, governs intestate succession, wills, and administration of estates. A holographic will is one that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Montana law, as codified in MCA § 72-2-522, recognizes holographic wills if they are signed by the testator and the signature and material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. The question asks about the validity of a will where only the signature is in the testator’s handwriting, and the rest is typed. This does not meet the statutory requirement for a holographic will in Montana. Furthermore, for a non-holographic will, MCA § 72-2-521 requires that the will be signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction, and be signed by at least two individuals, each of whom witnessed either the testator’s signing or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will. Since the typed portion is not signed by witnesses, and the holographic requirement is not met due to the typed material provisions, the will as described would likely be considered invalid in Montana for failing to meet the formal execution requirements of a witnessed will or the strict handwriting requirements of a holographic will.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. When a trustee resigns or is removed, the process for appointing a successor trustee is outlined. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-701 et seq. provides the framework for successor trustee appointments. If the trust instrument does not specify a method for appointing a successor, or if the designated appointer is unable or unwilling to act, the statute provides a default mechanism. MCA § 72-38-704(1) states that if the trust instrument does not provide for a successor trustee, the settlor may appoint one. However, if the settlor is unable or unwilling, or if the trust instrument is silent, then MCA § 72-38-704(2) dictates that a trustee may be appointed by a person designated in the trust instrument, or if no person is designated, by the beneficiaries who are of legal age and competent. If none of these methods yield an appointment, then MCA § 72-38-704(3) allows for the appointment of a trustee by the court upon application of any interested person. In this scenario, the trust instrument is silent on successor trustee appointment, and the named successor, Mr. Abernathy, is deceased. The beneficiaries are all adults and competent. Therefore, the beneficiaries have the authority to appoint a successor trustee.

In Montana, a trust can be established for the benefit of a specific class of beneficiaries. When a trustee is granted discretion to distribute trust assets among members of a defined class, the trust is considered a discretionary trust. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Montana, provides guidance on the administration of such trusts. A key principle is that the trustee must act in accordance with the terms of the trust and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The trustee’s discretion, while broad, is not absolute; it is subject to the implied duty of good faith and reasonable care. If the trustee fails to exercise discretion or exercises it in bad faith, a beneficiary may seek judicial intervention. The Montana Uniform Trust Code, specifically under provisions similar to MCA § 72-38-604 (regarding trustee’s duties in exercising discretion), outlines that a trustee must exercise discretionary powers reasonably and in accordance with the purposes of the trust. The question hinges on whether the trustee’s inaction, in this case, constitutes a breach of that duty. Given that the trust instrument clearly grants discretion and does not mandate specific distributions, and there is no indication of bad faith or unreasonable delay beyond a reasonable period for prudent administration, the beneficiaries cannot compel a distribution solely based on the passage of time. The trustee has a reasonable period to assess the trust’s circumstances and beneficiaries’ needs. The law does not impose a fixed deadline for exercising discretion in the absence of specific trust provisions or court orders. Therefore, without evidence of bad faith, unreasonable delay, or a violation of the trust’s stated purposes, the beneficiaries cannot force a distribution.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-33-601, addresses the modification or termination of a trust. A trust can be terminated if the trustee and all beneficiaries consent, provided the termination is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. Alternatively, under MCA § 72-33-602, a trust may be terminated if, due to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance with the trust’s terms would substantially impair its purpose. In such cases, a court may modify or terminate the trust. The scenario describes a trust established by Elias for the benefit of his grandchildren, specifying that the corpus is to be distributed equally when the youngest grandchild reaches the age of 25. However, Elias’s intention was to ensure financial stability for his grandchildren, and due to significant inflation and increased cost of living since the trust’s creation, the original corpus is now insufficient to provide meaningful financial support as Elias envisioned. This situation falls under MCA § 72-33-602, as the unanticipated circumstance of severe inflation has substantially impaired the trust’s material purpose of providing significant financial support. Therefore, a court would likely permit modification or termination of the trust to better achieve Elias’s original intent. The question asks about the most appropriate legal avenue for the beneficiaries. Since all beneficiaries are adults and consent to the modification, and the modification aims to better fulfill Elias’s original intent rather than thwart it, seeking court approval for modification under the unforeseen circumstances clause is the most direct and legally sound approach.

In Montana, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Montana law, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-524, recognizes holographic wills. For a holographic will to be valid in Montana, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. There is no requirement for witnesses for a holographic will. The scenario describes a will that is entirely in Elara’s handwriting and signed by her. Therefore, it meets the criteria for a valid holographic will in Montana, even without witnesses. The key is the testator’s handwriting and signature. Other forms of wills, such as attested wills, require witnesses. However, the specific nature of a holographic will bypasses this requirement. The question tests the understanding of the specific statutory requirements for holographic wills in Montana and how they differ from other types of wills.

Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in Montana, governs the modification and termination of trusts. When a trust is irrevocable, its terms can generally only be altered or terminated if the settlor’s intent can be achieved in a manner consistent with the trust’s terms, or if all beneficiaries consent and the modification or termination does not conflict with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the trust is irrevocable and was established by a settlor who is now deceased. The beneficiaries, all adults and competent, unanimously agree to terminate the trust and distribute the assets. However, the trust instrument expressly states that the trust is for the “benefit of my grandchildren, ensuring their education and financial stability until they reach the age of thirty.” This provision clearly indicates a material purpose of the trust: to provide long-term financial stability and controlled distribution to the beneficiaries, not merely a simple outright gift. Terminating the trust and distributing the corpus outright to beneficiaries who are all under thirty would frustrate this material purpose. Montana’s Uniform Trust Code, mirroring common law principles, allows for termination or modification by consent of all beneficiaries only if no material purpose of the trust is frustrated. Since the settlor’s intent for controlled distribution and financial stability until age thirty is a material purpose, and this purpose would be frustrated by immediate termination and distribution, the beneficiaries’ consent alone is insufficient to terminate the trust. The trustee would likely be unable to comply with such a request without violating their fiduciary duties.

The Montana Uniform Trust Code, specifically concerning the modification or termination of a trust, outlines several pathways. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 56-3-107 permits a trustee to proceed with modification or termination of a trust without court approval if all beneficiaries consent and the modification or termination does not conflict with a material purpose of the trust. In this scenario, the trust instrument explicitly states a material purpose: to provide for the education of Elara’s grandchildren and to preserve the principal for future generations. While Elara’s children are all adults and no longer require educational support, and the current beneficiaries (Elara’s grandchildren) all agree to terminate the trust and distribute the assets, the preservation of principal for future generations remains a stated material purpose. Therefore, the unanimous consent of the current beneficiaries alone is insufficient to override this expressed material purpose without court intervention or the consent of all beneficiaries, including potential future ones whose interests are not yet vested. MCA § 56-3-108 provides that a trust may be terminated if the purposes of the trust have been fulfilled or have become unlawful, impossible, or impracticable to fulfill. Here, the purpose of providing education has been fulfilled for the current generation, but the purpose of preserving principal for future generations has not. MCA § 56-3-109 allows for modification or termination upon the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor if the settlor has the capacity to consent, or if all beneficiaries and a trustee consent, and a court approves if the modification or termination does not conflict with a material purpose. Since the material purpose of preservation for future generations is still active and not yet fulfilled or impossible, and the settlor is deceased, court approval is generally required unless all beneficiaries, including any contingent or future beneficiaries whose consent can be obtained or whose interests can be adequately protected, agree. Given the remaining material purpose, the trustee cannot unilaterally terminate the trust solely based on the current beneficiaries’ consent. The trustee must seek court approval to modify or terminate the trust, demonstrating that either the material purpose is no longer relevant or that the termination is in the best interests of all beneficiaries, including potential future ones, or that all beneficiaries agree and the court finds no conflict with a material purpose. The most appropriate action for the trustee, given the remaining material purpose and the absence of the settlor, is to petition the court for approval of the termination.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the creation and administration of trusts. Specifically, MCA § 72-33-601 outlines the requirements for a trust to be validly created. A trust is generally created by a settlor who has capacity to create a trust and who manifests an intention to create a trust. The trust must have a definite beneficiary or be a charitable trust, or be a trust for the care of an animal or a trust for a valid purpose. The trust must also have trust property and the trustee must have duties to perform. In this scenario, Elara’s holographic will, validly executed under Montana law for a will, is sufficient to manifest her intent to create a trust. The specific bequest of her antique coin collection to her nephew, Finn, with the instruction that Finn should use the collection “for his enjoyment and education, and to pass it on to his children when they reach adulthood,” clearly identifies Finn as the beneficiary. The coin collection itself constitutes the trust property. The trustee, in this case, is implied to be Finn, as he is the one directed to hold and manage the property for the specified purposes. The phrase “for his enjoyment and education, and to pass it on to his children when they reach adulthood” establishes a valid purpose and a beneficial interest for Finn and his future children, thereby satisfying the requirement of a definite beneficiary. Therefore, Elara’s holographic will effectively creates a trust for Finn.

The scenario describes a situation involving a testamentary trust established by a Montana resident. The trust document specifies that income generated by the trust corpus is to be distributed to the settlor’s daughter, Elara, during her lifetime, with the remainder to be distributed to her children upon her death. A key aspect of this trust is the provision for the trustee to invade the principal for Elara’s “health, education, and support.” This language typically signifies a “ascertainable standard” for the invasion of corpus. Montana law, like that of many states, recognizes that distributions made pursuant to an ascertainable standard are generally not considered general powers of appointment for estate tax purposes, nor are they typically included in the beneficiary’s taxable estate if the beneficiary is not also the trustee and the standard is strictly adhered to. The question probes the tax implications of such a trust, specifically concerning the inclusion of the trust corpus in Elara’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. Because the trustee’s power to invade principal is limited by an ascertainable standard relating to Elara’s health, education, and support, and assuming Elara is not the sole trustee or does not possess a general power of appointment, the trust corpus would not be included in her gross estate under IRC Section 2041. The phrase “health, education, and support” is a well-established ascertainable standard. Therefore, the corpus of the trust would not be includible in Elara’s gross estate.

Montana law, specifically the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in Montana, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trustee has discretion to distribute income or principal to beneficiaries, the standard for exercising that discretion is crucial. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-33-814(1) states that “a trustee with discretionary power may exercise the power in accordance with the trustee’s fiduciary duties.” Furthermore, MCA § 72-33-602(1) outlines the duty to administer a trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. While a trustee has broad discretion, this discretion is not absolute. It must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, considering the purposes of the trust and the needs of the beneficiaries. A trustee cannot act arbitrarily or in a manner that frustrates the settlor’s intent. For instance, if a trust’s purpose is to provide for a beneficiary’s education and support, a trustee cannot withhold distributions for frivolous personal reasons unrelated to the trust’s objectives. The concept of “absolute discretion” in a trust document, while granting significant latitude, is still subject to the overarching fiduciary duties imposed by law. A trustee’s failure to exercise discretion in good faith or in accordance with the trust’s purposes can lead to a breach of trust, making the trustee liable for any resulting damages. Therefore, even with broad discretionary powers, a trustee must act prudently and in the best interests of the beneficiaries, adhering to the trust’s stated purposes and Montana’s trust law principles.

Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted in Montana (Title 72, Chapter 33 of the Montana Code Annotated), governs the modification and termination of trusts. A trust can be terminated if its purpose has been fulfilled, or if owing to circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, its continuation would substantially impair or defeat the accomplishment of the trust’s purposes. In such cases, the court may order termination and distribute the trust property to the beneficiaries. Furthermore, if all beneficiaries consent to the termination and the court finds that continuation is not necessary to continue a material purpose of the trust, the trust may be terminated. The scenario describes a trust established for the education of young Elias, which has now been completed. Elias has reached adulthood and has obtained his doctorate. Therefore, the trust’s original purpose has been fulfilled. Montana law permits termination of a trust when its purpose has been accomplished. The trustee, acting in accordance with Montana’s Uniform Trust Code, would seek court approval to terminate the trust and distribute the remaining corpus to Elias, the sole beneficiary, as the trust’s purpose has been fully satisfied.

In Montana, the Uniform Probate Code, as adopted and modified, governs the distribution of an estate when a person dies intestate (without a valid will). Montana law specifies a hierarchy of heirs who are entitled to inherit. For a decedent who is survived by a spouse and no children or parents, the surviving spouse inherits the entire estate. This is a fundamental principle of intestate succession designed to provide for the surviving spouse. If the decedent were survived by children, the spouse’s share would be different, often a fraction of the estate depending on the number of children. Similarly, if the decedent had no surviving spouse but was survived by descendants, those descendants would inherit the estate in equal shares, per stirpes. The absence of a will means the statutory rules dictate the distribution, and the focus is on the closest blood relatives.

In Montana, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, MCA § 72-33-601 addresses the duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. This statute outlines the trustee’s obligations to provide certain information to qualified beneficiaries. A qualified beneficiary is defined as a beneficiary whose interest is a future interest and who, on the date the beneficiary’s qualification is determined, is entitled to income or principal of the trust. The statute requires trustees to furnish to a qualified beneficiary, at least annually, a report detailing the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, including the source and amount of trustee compensation. Additionally, upon reasonable request, the trustee must provide the qualified beneficiary with a copy of the trust instrument and a statement of accounts. The question concerns the timing of the trustee’s duty to provide a trust instrument copy to a beneficiary whose interest is contingent. A contingent beneficiary is not automatically a qualified beneficiary unless their interest vests. However, the duty to inform and report generally extends to beneficiaries who are reasonably ascertainable. While the statute prioritizes qualified beneficiaries, the general principles of fiduciary duty and the Uniform Trust Code’s emphasis on transparency suggest that a trustee should provide the trust instrument to a beneficiary with a colorable claim or a vested interest, even if not a qualified beneficiary under the strict definition, upon reasonable request. The key is the “reasonable request” and the beneficiary’s status. In this scenario, Elara’s interest is contingent, meaning she is not yet a qualified beneficiary under MCA § 72-33-601(1)(a) because her interest is not presently ascertainable as a future interest that she is entitled to. However, Montana law, reflecting the broader principles of trust law, recognizes that even contingent beneficiaries may have rights to information, particularly regarding the terms of the trust that will govern their potential interest. The duty to inform and report under MCA § 72-33-601 is primarily directed at qualified beneficiaries. For other beneficiaries, including contingent ones, the trustee’s duty is more nuanced and often arises from the general duty of loyalty and good faith, and the common law right to demand inspection of the trust instrument. While the statute does not mandate annual reports to contingent beneficiaries, it does not preclude them from requesting the trust instrument. The trustee’s obligation to provide the trust instrument arises upon a reasonable request from a beneficiary. Elara’s request, though for the entire instrument, is reasonable given her potential future interest. The statute’s focus on “qualified beneficiaries” for the annual reporting does not negate the trustee’s duty to respond to reasonable requests for the trust instrument from other beneficiaries, especially when their interest is clearly defined, albeit contingent. The trustee must provide the trust instrument within a reasonable time after receiving a reasonable request.

Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in Montana, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-813 outlines the trustee’s duty to keep the beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration and its material facts. This includes providing beneficiaries with a copy of the trust instrument if requested, and within 60 days after accepting trusteeship, providing a notice of the trust’s existence, the trustee’s name and address, and the time allowed for contesting the trust. Furthermore, MCA § 72-38-813(3) mandates that a trustee must respond within 60 days to a beneficiary’s request for an accounting of the trust property and of the receipts and disbursements of the trust. This accounting should include a list of all trust property, the principal and income amounts received and paid out, and the names and addresses of all persons who are interested in the trust. The question posits a scenario where a beneficiary requests an accounting, and the trustee fails to provide it within the statutory timeframe. This failure constitutes a breach of the trustee’s duty to inform and report. The appropriate legal recourse for a beneficiary in such a situation is to petition the court for an accounting, as provided by MCA § 72-38-1008(1)(A), which allows a beneficiary to petition the court for an order compelling the trustee to perform the trustee’s duties.

The scenario involves the concept of a holographic will in Montana. Montana law, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-523, defines a holographic will as a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. The key elements are that the entire will must be in the testator’s handwriting, and it must be signed. In this case, the document is entirely in Elias’s handwriting and signed by him. The presence of a witness is not required for a holographic will under Montana law. Therefore, the will is valid. The question tests the understanding of the specific requirements for a holographic will in Montana, distinguishing it from a witnessed will. The validity hinges on the entirety of the writing being in the testator’s hand and the signature, not on the presence or absence of witnesses.

Montana law, specifically under Title 72, Chapter 33, governs the administration of trusts and the duties of trustees. A trustee’s primary duty is to administer the trust according to its terms and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. This includes the duty of loyalty, the duty of prudence, and the duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration. When a trustee acts in a manner that is inconsistent with these duties, beneficiaries may have grounds to seek remedies. In this scenario, the trustee’s unilateral decision to invest a significant portion of the trust assets in a highly speculative venture, without consulting the beneficiaries or obtaining court approval, likely violates the duty of prudence and potentially the duty of loyalty if personal benefit is implied. Montana law emphasizes that investments must be made with the care, skill, and caution that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use. The beneficiaries’ request for an accounting and information regarding the investment strategy is a fundamental right under Montana trust law, aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability. Failure to provide this information further exacerbates the trustee’s breach of duty. The court, upon petition, can compel the trustee to provide an accounting, remove the trustee, or order other appropriate relief to protect the trust and its beneficiaries. The question hinges on identifying the most direct and legally supported action a beneficiary can take to address the trustee’s conduct.

In Montana, a will can be revoked by a subsequent will or codicil that expressly revokes the prior will, or by a physical act of destruction of the will with the intent to revoke. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-512 addresses revocation of wills. For a will to be considered revoked by a physical act, the testator must intend to revoke the will, and the act must be performed on the will itself, or on a duplicate of the will. The act must be done by the testator or by someone in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. In this scenario, Elara’s action of tearing her will into several pieces, coupled with her clear statement of intent to revoke it, satisfies the requirements for revocation by physical act under Montana law. The physical destruction, when accompanied by the requisite intent, effectively cancels the will. The fact that she later changes her mind and regrets the action does not revive the revoked will; a new will or a codicil to a valid will would be required to re-establish testamentary intent. The destroyed will is no longer legally valid.

In Montana, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Montana law, specifically Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-524, recognizes holographic wills as valid without witnesses, provided the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. This statute is crucial because it provides an exception to the general witness requirements for formal wills under MCA § 72-2-522. The key is that the entire will, including the dispositive provisions and the testator’s intent to make a will, must be in their own handwriting. If any part of the material provisions is typed or written by another person, the will may be deemed invalid as a holographic will. Therefore, the validity hinges on the entirety of the material provisions being in the testator’s handwriting, along with their signature. This distinction is vital for ensuring that the testator’s final wishes are accurately reflected and that the document truly represents their intent, free from external influence on the core testamentary language. The statute aims to provide a mechanism for valid testamentary disposition in situations where a formal will might not have been executed.

In Montana, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is governed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-321. A pretermitted heir is a child or issue of a child who is born or adopted after the execution of a will and who is neither provided for nor expressly excluded by the will. Under Montana law, if a testator fails to provide in their will for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, the omitted child receives a share in the estate. This share is equal to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning as if there were no will, unless the will indicates an intention to disinherit all such after-born or after-adopted children. The share is calculated from the portion of the estate not passing to a surviving spouse or to devisees who are not ancestors or relatives of the testator. Specifically, MCA § 72-2-321(2) states that the omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to that which the child would have received under the provisions of MCA Title 72, chapter 2, part 1 (Intestate Succession), if the testator had died intestate. However, this share is taken ratably from the portions of the testator’s estate that would have passed under the testator’s will to the testator’s surviving spouse and to those devisees who are not ancestors or relatives of the testator. This ensures that the pretermitted heir receives their rightful inheritance without unduly impacting specific bequests to non-relatives or the spousal share, unless the will clearly expresses an intent to disinherit all such after-discovered heirs. The calculation involves determining the intestate share and then identifying the portions of the estate from which that share will be satisfied, typically excluding the surviving spouse’s statutory share and bequests to individuals unrelated to the testator.

In Montana, the concept of a holographic will is governed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-2-524. This statute specifies that a will is valid if it is entirely in the handwriting of the testator and signed by the testator. The key element for validity is that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any portion of the will is typed or written by another person, even if the testator signs it, it does not meet the requirements for a holographic will. Therefore, a will that is entirely handwritten by the testator and signed by the testator is valid as a holographic will in Montana, provided it meets all other general testamentary requirements such as intent and capacity. The existence of a prior, properly executed formal will does not automatically invalidate a later holographic will, but the holographic will would generally revoke the prior will to the extent of any inconsistent provisions or if it clearly expresses an intent to revoke. The question focuses on the validity of the holographic will itself, assuming it was properly executed and intended to be a will.

Montana law, specifically under the Uniform Trust Code as adopted and modified in Montana, addresses the rights of beneficiaries to information about their trusts. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 72-38-1008 outlines the trustee’s duty to respond to beneficiary requests for information. This duty is triggered by a beneficiary’s request for information regarding the trust and its administration. The trustee must provide a copy of the trust instrument, provide the trustee’s name, address, and telephone number, and respond to reasonable requests for information about the trust’s assets and liabilities, including details about the trust’s income and expenses. The statute also specifies that the trustee must provide a beneficiary with a report on the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, including the trust’s financial statements, at least annually. This reporting obligation is a core component of the trustee’s duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy, as a qualified beneficiary, has made a direct request for information. The trustee’s obligation is to provide the requested information, including a report, within a reasonable time. The prompt asks about the trustee’s duty to provide a report. MCA § 72-38-1008(a) explicitly states the trustee must provide a report to each qualified beneficiary at least annually. Therefore, the trustee has a duty to provide Mr. Abernathy with a report.