Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rentmeister v. Desilva

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1976No. 14366Published

1Concurrence

CROCKETT, Justice:

(concurring, with comments).

I am in entire agreement with the decision affirming the judgment of the trial court. But it seems to me that there could be a misunderstanding as to two statements made therein. Therefore, regretting the necessity of this addendum, I feel impelled to state as follows:

1. The conclusion of the opinion states that . . if there was a mistake in drafting the instrument, it nevertheless expressed the settlor’s true intention.” This strikes me as a paradox. That is, if there was a mistake, it would not express her true intention. But the fact appears to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In RE LAVELLE'S ESTATE. IMMERCHAL v. First SEC. BankUtah Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Peterson v. EldredgeUtah Supreme Court · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API