Dahl v. Dahl, 2015 UT 23, 459 P.3d 276

Reviewed by Elizabeth A. Tresp, JD, LL.M., trust & probate litigator · Updated August 2026

What the court actually held

Choice of law (¶ 16). Utah will generally enforce a choice-of-law provision in a trust unless doing so would undermine a strong public policy of the State of Utah (Utah Code § 75-7-107). And because “Utah has a strong public policy interest in the equitable division of marital assets, we will not enforce the choice-of-law provision contained in the Trust. Instead, we construe the Trust according to Utah law.”

The drafting failure (¶¶ 30–32). Section 5.5 of the instrument read, in full:

The court held that by the Trust’s plain language Dr. Dahl had reserved an unrestricted power to amend, and that under In re Estate of Flake, “a settlor’s unrestricted power to amend a trust includes, by definition, the power to revoke the trust” (¶ 32). A provision drafted that broadly could not be read to create an irrevocable trust, whatever its caption said.

The court also held that the Trust should have been joined as a party to the divorce action for purposes of distributing the marital estate, and that the district court exceeded its authority by adjudicating claims not properly before it.

How it is commonly miscited

• “Utah refused to enforce a Nevada DAPT.” Two errors. The instrument was a “Dahl Family Irrevocable Trust” with a Nevada choice-of-law clause; the opinion does not analyze it as an NRS ch. 166 self-settled spendthrift trust, and on these facts it would not have satisfied Nevada’s resident-trustee requirement. And the court never decided whether Nevada DAPT law is generally repugnant to Utah policy.
• “Utah held DAPTs violate public policy.” The public-policy holding concerns equitable division of marital assets, and it displaced only the construction-related choice of law.

The planning lesson

This is a malpractice case in substance. A caption is not an operative term, and a reserved power to amend “any of the terms or provisions” swallows an irrevocability clause whole. It is also a reminder that divorce is a different threat vector from creditors: the countervailing public policy is marital-property division, and it is strong in every state.

Why this matters for your plan

Reading the cases is not an academic exercise. Every one of these decisions turned on something a planner controls: when the structure was created, how much control the settlor kept, whether the governing-law choice was backed by real contacts, and whether the client told the truth on the record. We build to the way these disputes are actually litigated, because Elizabeth litigates them. To discuss how your situation maps onto this body of law, call (858) 755-6672.