Christensen Family Trust v. Christensen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that beneficiaries with highly remote contingent interests in a trust were not real parties in interest to a suit to enjoin a sale of trust-held real estate for purposes of I.R.C.P. 17(a)
• holding issue of settlor’s intent, as a question of fact, could not be resolved on summary judgment
• holding issue of settlor’s intent, as a question of fact, could not be resolved on summary judgment
• contingent beneficiaries, having a mere expectancy, were held not to be real parties in interest because the terms of the trust allowed for its exhaustion before they might receive anything from it.
• court may not consider the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether to allow a party to amend because that is more properly an issue for summary judgment state
• court may not consider the sufficiency of evidence in determining whether to allow a party to amend because that is more properly an issue for summary judgment state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).