Also known as:revocable inter vivos trust · revocable living trust · revocable living trusts · revocable trust · living trust
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A trust created during the settlor's lifetime under which the settlor retains the power to revoke or amend the trust and to direct the trustee's actions. The capacity required to create, amend, revoke, or add property to the trust is the same as that required to make a will.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Capacity to Revoke Trust
Renata Russo, while competent to execute a will, signs an amendment to her revocable inter vivos trust directing the trustee to distribute certain assets to a new charity upon her death. After her death her heirs challenge the amendment on capacity grounds. The court applies the will-capacity standard and upholds the amendment because Renata possessed the requisite understanding at the time she executed it.
Federal Jurisdiction Over Trust Dispute
Riley Rivera, as executor of an estate, sues in federal court claiming that assets held in a revocable inter vivos trust were improperly transferred before death. The opposing party moves to dismiss, arguing the probate exception bars federal jurisdiction. The court denies the motion because the claim concerns the validity of the trust instrument itself rather than core probate administration.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Marshall v. Marshall547 U.S. 293, 310–12 (2006)
State Law Characterization Binding
Ravi Reddy's estate includes interests in a revocable inter vivos trust. A state probate court determines the settlor's intent regarding revocation rights. In a later federal tax dispute the IRS argues the federal court may disregard the state ruling. The court holds that the state adjudication of the trust's character controls the federal tax consequences.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967)
Bankruptcy Court Authority Over Trust Claim
Ronald Reed files for bankruptcy and asserts a counterclaim alleging that assets placed in a revocable inter vivos trust were fraudulently conveyed. The bankruptcy court enters final judgment on the tort claim. On appeal the judgment is vacated because the bankruptcy judge lacked constitutional authority to decide the common-law claim without Article III protections.
Stern v. Marshall564 U.S. 462, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 180 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2011)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does placing marital property into a revocable inter vivos trust change its classification for divorce purposes?+
No. Under governing marital property rules, property acquired during marriage remains marital even after transfer to a revocable trust. The trust vehicle affects only legal title and management, not the underlying classification between spouses. Absent a valid marital property agreement or decree reclassifying the asset, each spouse retains an undivided one-half interest subject to equitable division.
Supporting sources
How does divorce affect beneficiary designations in a revocable inter vivos trust created before the divorce?+
Divorce automatically revokes any revocable disposition or fiduciary nomination in favor of the former spouse. The trust instrument is then applied as if the former spouse had predeceased the settlor, allowing contingent or alternate beneficiaries to take instead. This rule applies unless a court order, property settlement, or express term in the instrument preserves the former spouse's rights.
Supporting sources
Must a revocable inter vivos trust be executed with the same formalities required for a will?+
No. A revocable inter vivos trust is a will substitute that transfers a future interest during the settlor's life. It need not comply with statutory will formalities even though it serves a testamentary function and may be amended or revoked by a later will.
Supporting sources
547 U.S. 293 (2006)Civil Procedure
…Pierce Marshall (Pierce), one of J. Howard’s sons, was the ultimate beneficiary of J. Howard’s estate plan, which consisted of a living trust and a “pourover” will. Under the terms of the will, all of J. Howard’s assets not already included in the trust were to be transferred to the trust upon his death. Competing claims…