Appeals court hears trust dispute over whether conveyance was a nominee trust or revocable trust

The panel considered an appeal over the legal character of an instrument that transferred family property into a trust. Appellant counsel argued the trial judge erred in labeling the instrument a nominee trust and said the instrument’s text and separate schedule of beneficiaries reserved substantial fiduciary powers to the settlor.

Why it matters: Classification as a nominee trust or a revocable/irrevocable trust determines whether beneficial interests vested at creation and whether later amendments or deeds are effective; the outcome affects property rights and potential remedies for beneficiaries.

Appellant’s argument: Steven LeVaque, counsel for the appellant, argued the trust document must be read as a whole and that key provisions reserved to the settlor powers to manage and spend corpus for beneficiaries until a stated termination event (distribution at age 25). LeVaque emphasized that several provisions allow the trustee/settlor to act in the beneficiaries’ best interest without requiring beneficiary direction; he argued that under the Uniform Trust Code principles and applicable Massachusetts law the document did not meet the elements of a nominee trust and that the lower court relied on facts outside the four corners of the trust.

Respondent’s argument: Kevin Diamond, counsel for Shane Gravel and the minor beneficiaries, told the panel the record shows a completed gift into the trust, recording of deeds and trustee certificates, and that the trust design intentionally prevented the grantor from revoking or reclaiming property. Diamond said the trust and its schedule should be read together and that the instrument created vested beneficiary rights subject to the trust‑end conditions; he argued the lower court properly found the document met the legal test for the trust classification used in the decision.

Panel focus and next steps: The justices asked whether the settlor had retained powers under the instrument that would prevent it being treated as a nominee trust and whether extrinsic evidence about intent is admissible if the trust instrument is ambiguous. The parties debated the meaning of specific powers and whether minor beneficiaries’ lack of legal capacity makes any approval mechanism legally impossible. The panel submitted the case for decision.