When people set up a trust to manage and distribute their property after death, they usually hope it will make things simpler for their loved ones. But what happens when the trust is confusing, contradictory, or doesn’t cover every possible situation? That’s exactly what happened in a recent Michigan case involving the Kalbach family.

🧾 The Background

Charles and Betty Kalbach created a trust in 2006 to manage their property and provide for their needs during their lifetimes. They had five children, but they chose to leave their estate only to two of them—Barbara and Brett. The trust was designed to split everything between those two after both parents passed away. But things didn’t go as planned:

Betty later changed the trust to give specific pieces of land to Barbara and Brett.

She also signed a deed giving them joint ownership of the property, with the right of survivorship.

Betty died in 2016.

Brett died shortly after, without a will or children.

Barbara died in 2021, leaving everything to her brother Thomas (the appellee in the case).

Charles died in 2011.

The problem? The trust had never been properly administered, and the property was never officially transferred to Barbara or Brett.

⚖️ The Legal Dispute

Another sibling, Peter (the appellant), argued that since both Barbara and Brett died without receiving their shares and had no descendants, the trust had failed. He believed the property should be split among the three remaining siblings.

Thomas disagreed. He argued that their mother, Betty, clearly intended for Barbara and Brett to receive the property—and since Barbara outlived Brett, she should get it all. And since Barbara left everything to Thomas in her will, he should inherit the property.

🧑‍⚖️ What the Court Decided

The court agreed with Thomas. Here’s why:

The trust was confusing and didn’t clearly explain what should happen if both main beneficiaries died without children and without receiving their inheritance.

Because of this ambiguity, the court was allowed to look at outside evidence—like the deed Betty signed in 2015—to figure out what she intended.

That deed showed Betty wanted Barbara and Brett to own the property together, with Barbara getting it all if Brett died first.

Since Barbara did outlive Brett, the court decided she was entitled to the property.

The court reformed (legally changed) the trust to reflect this and transferred the property to Barbara’s estate—meaning it would go to Thomas, as her will directed.

🧠 The Takeaway

This case shows how courts handle trusts that don’t cover every situation. When a trust is ambiguous or incomplete, judges can look at other evidence to figure out what the person who created the trust really wanted. And if necessary, they can even change the trust to make sure that intent is honored.

If you’re setting up a trust, this case is a reminder to be as clear and thorough as possible—and to keep it updated as life changes.

  • trust dispute resolution
  • probate court Michigan
  • estate planning mistakes
  • revocable living trust
  • trust reformation
  • ambiguous trust terms
  • inheritance dispute
  • family trust litigation
  • how to avoid trust disputes
  • Michigan probate law