AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a trust, specifically concerning the appointment of a successor trustee, the interpretation of a latent ambiguity in the trust, and the admission of hearsay evidence at trial. The trust in question is the Fred Saddler Revocable Trust dated October 28, 1995, and the Dorothy T. Saddler Trust. The dispute arose after attempts were made to amend the trust instrument to change the successor trustee designation, which was contested.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, John Davis, District Judge: Issued a judgment and order dealing with the interpretation and enforcement of a trust, which was appealed by the defendants.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: The arguments presented by the plaintiff-appellee are not detailed in the decision.
• Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in (1) finding an attempt to amend the trust instrument to change the successor trustee designation void, (2) finding a latent ambiguity in the trust and considering extrinsic evidence of the settlor’s intent, and (3) admitting hearsay evidence at trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the attempt to amend the trust instrument to change the successor trustee designation was void.
• Whether the district court improperly found a latent ambiguity in the trust, leading to the consideration of extrinsic evidence of the settlor’s intent.
• Whether hearsay evidence received at trial was admissible under a valid exception to the hearsay rule.

Disposition

• Affirmed the judgment entered by the district court and remanded for the entry of an award of appellate costs and fees.

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (HANISEE, J., and ZAMORA, J., concurring):
  The court found that the attempt to amend the trust instrument to change the successor trustee designation was void as it contravened the terms of the trust itself, which did not support the defendants' argument that the trustee had the power to appoint a successor (paras 2-3).
  The court held that any error in considering extrinsic evidence of the settlor’s intent due to a perceived latent ambiguity in the trust was harmless, as the defendants conceded that the district court’s finding of the settlor’s intent was consistent with their interpretation of the trust instrument (para 4).
  The court was unpersuaded that error occurred regarding the admission of hearsay evidence at trial, noting that the hearsay in question appeared to fall within a valid exception to the hearsay rule (para 5).
  The court concluded that an award of costs and fees on appeal was appropriate, relying upon the common fund doctrine and the court’s discretion pursuant to Rule 12-403(A) NMRA, and remanded for the district court’s consideration and determination of reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal (para 6).