This is a NJ trust reformation case where the challenger wants to delete an article from the trust agreement. I have read that the burden of proof is on the party who requests the reformation to provide "clear and convincing evidence" that the article she wants to delete would be inconsistent with the grantor's intent. If the party who wants to uphold the trust can provide solid evidence that it was in character for the grantor to include that article in the trust agreement, is this enough to be entitled to prevail as a matter of law?
Summary judgment itself is a very difficult statndard. There must be no issues of material fact. What you are talking about seems very fact sensitive, and would require testimony and a review by a judge. So the issue itself is not approrpaite for summary judgment regardless of the standard.
Consumers can use this platform to pose legal questions to real lawyers and receive free insights.
Participating legal professionals get the opportunity to speak directly with people who may need their services, as well as enhance their standing in the Lawyers.com community.