Mr. Goodwin is everything you want in an attorney: professional, honest, thorough, and genuinely caring. He always explains things clearly, so I understood exactly what was happening and what to expect next. His attention to detail and persistence really stood out. Looking back, I feel lucky to have found him. He guided me through the whole process expertly, and I deeply appreciate all his hard work. Would definitely recommend him to anyone needing legal help.
Call Today:
212-233-1233
EPTL 7-1.6: Invading Trust Principal — When Courts Allow It
Many New York trusts pay income to one person for life and reserve the principal for someone else, often children or grandchildren, after the income beneficiary dies. That structure works well when trust income is enough to live on. It fails when it is not. An elderly income beneficiary facing nursing costs, medical bills or simple inflation may find that a trust holding hundreds of thousands of dollars produces only a modest income stream that the trustee has no power to supplement.
New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 7-1.6 addresses exactly this problem. It gives the court having jurisdiction over an express trust the discretionary power to order an allowance from trust principal to an income beneficiary whose support or education is not sufficiently provided for, even if the trust instrument gives the trustee no power to invade principal, and even if the income beneficiary has no interest in the principal at all.
This page explains what the statute says, the standards New York courts apply, how the proceeding works in Surrogate’s Court, and the pitfalls that most often defeat these petitions.
What EPTL 7-1.6 Says in Plain Language
EPTL 7-1.6 has two operative subdivisions, and which one applies depends on when the trust was created. The dividing line is June 1, 1966, the effective date of the statute’s predecessor (former Personal Property Law § 15-a and Real Property Law § 103-a), which was carried forward into the EPTL.
EPTL 7-1.6(a): Trusts Created Before June 1, 1966
For older trusts, the court may in its discretion make an allowance from principal to any income beneficiary whose support or education is not sufficiently provided for, but only if the court, after a hearing on notice to all persons beneficially interested in the trust, is satisfied of two things: that the original purpose of the creator of the trust cannot be carried out, and that the allowance effectuates the intention of the creator. The first requirement makes subdivision (a) a demanding standard. It is not enough that the income beneficiary needs money; the petitioner must show that the trust as written can no longer accomplish what the creator set out to do.
EPTL 7-1.6(b): Trusts Created On or After June 1, 1966
For trusts created after the effective date, which is the vast majority of trusts encountered today, subdivision (b) drops the “original purpose cannot be carried out” requirement. The court may make an allowance from principal to any income beneficiary whose support or education is not sufficiently provided for, whether or not that person is entitled to the principal of the trust or any part of it, provided that the court, after a hearing on notice to all persons beneficially interested, is satisfied that the allowance effectuates the intention of the creator.
Two features of subdivision (b) deserve emphasis. First, no interest in principal is required: a life income beneficiary with no remainder interest whatsoever can still receive principal by court order. This is the statute’s most powerful feature. Second, the consent of the remaindermen is not required. They are entitled to notice and to be heard, and their interests weigh in the court’s analysis, but they cannot veto the application. The leading Court of Appeals decision, Matter of Flyer, 23 N.Y.2d 579 (1969), confirmed that where the creator’s dominant purpose was the care and support of the income beneficiary, the court may authorize invasion even though it diminishes what the remaindermen will eventually receive.
| Requirement | Subdivision (a): trust created before June 1, 1966 | Subdivision (b): trust created on or after June 1, 1966 |
|---|---|---|
| Support or education not sufficiently provided for | Yes | Yes |
| Hearing on notice to all persons beneficially interested | Yes | Yes |
| Original purpose of the creator cannot be carried out | Yes | No |
| Allowance effectuates the creator’s intention | Yes | Yes |
| Beneficiary must have an interest in principal | Not stated | No; expressly available whether or not the beneficiary is entitled to any principal |
The Critical Exception: “Unless Otherwise Provided in the Disposing Instrument”
Both subdivisions apply “unless otherwise provided in the disposing instrument.” If the trust agreement or will expressly prohibits invasion of principal, or expressly negates the application of EPTL 7-1.6, the court has no power to grant relief. Reading the trust instrument carefully is therefore the first step in evaluating any potential petition. This opt-out is not a technicality; it is standard drafting in Medicaid asset protection trusts, as discussed below.
The Elements a Petitioner Must Prove
For a post-1966 trust under EPTL 7-1.6(b), the petitioner must establish five things.
| Element | What the court looks at |
|---|---|
| The petitioner is an income beneficiary | Of an express trust that pays or applies income to their use. |
| Support or education is not sufficiently provided for | The beneficiary’s actual needs against the income the trust produces. Courts also consider the beneficiary’s independent resources (Social Security, pensions, savings, other trusts) and the standard of living the creator apparently intended the beneficiary to enjoy. A beneficiary with ample outside means will rarely qualify. |
| The allowance effectuates the intention of the creator | This is where most contested cases are won or lost. The court reconstructs the creator’s intent from the instrument as a whole. Was the income beneficiary the primary object of the creator’s bounty (for example, a surviving spouse), with the remaindermen taking only what is left? Or did the creator deliberately limit the beneficiary to income to preserve principal for the next generation? An invasion is granted in the first scenario and denied in the second. |
| The instrument does not prohibit invasion | Nothing in the trust prohibits invasion of principal or negates EPTL 7-1.6. |
| Notice and hearing | All persons beneficially interested received notice and the court held a hearing. |
Worked Example 1: Invasion Granted
A husband dies leaving a testamentary trust: “income to my wife for life, remainder to my children.” The trust holds $600,000 in a balanced portfolio generating approximately $18,000 per year in distributable income (3%). The will gives the trustee no power to invade principal and does not prohibit invasion.
The widow, now 82, has monthly expenses of $7,500, including $3,800 for home health aides, or $90,000 per year. Her independent income is $26,000 in Social Security and a $10,000 pension. Combined with trust income, she has $54,000 against $90,000 of need: an annual shortfall of $36,000. Her personal savings of $40,000 will be exhausted in just over a year.
She petitions the Surrogate’s Court under EPTL 7-1.6(b) for an annual allowance of $36,000 from principal, payable monthly. The children, as remaindermen, are cited. The court finds that the testator’s dominant purpose was his wife’s lifetime support, that the shortfall is genuine and documented, and that an annual invasion of 6% of principal, while reducing the remainder, effectuates the testator’s intent. The court grants the allowance, often with a requirement that the trustee report annually so the amount can be adjusted if the widow’s circumstances change.
Worked Example 2: Invasion Denied
A grandmother creates a lifetime trust: income to her son for life, remainder to her grandchildren, with a recital that the trust is intended “to preserve the principal for the education of my grandchildren.” The trust holds $400,000 producing $12,000 per year. The son, 55, earns $70,000 annually and has $250,000 in retirement accounts. He petitions for $50,000 from principal to pay down credit card debt and renovate his home.
The petition fails on two independent grounds. First, his support is sufficiently provided for by his own earnings and resources; debt consolidation and renovations are not the kind of unmet support need the statute targets. Second, the instrument’s stated purpose shows the creator’s dominant intent was to preserve principal for the grandchildren, so an invasion would defeat, not effectuate, her intention.
Procedure in Surrogate’s Court, Step by Step
The Surrogate’s Court has jurisdiction over both testamentary trusts and lifetime (inter vivos) trusts, under SCPA § 207 for lifetime trusts and its general jurisdiction over estates and testamentary trusts. The Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction over trusts, but these applications are ordinarily brought in the Surrogate’s Court of the county where the trust is administered or where the will was probated.
- Prepare the petition. The verified petition should attach the trust instrument (or will), describe the trust’s assets and income with current account statements, set out the beneficiary’s complete financial picture (income, expenses, assets and liabilities, with documentation), state the amount and form of the allowance requested (lump sum or periodic), and explain why the allowance effectuates the creator’s intent.
- Identify all persons beneficially interested. The statute requires notice to all persons beneficially interested in the trust: the trustee, co-income beneficiaries, presumptive remaindermen and contingent remaindermen. Where contingent interests are held by minors, unborns or unascertained persons, virtual representation under SCPA § 315 may allow an adult with an identical interest to bind them; otherwise the court will appoint a guardian ad litem under SCPA § 403.
- Obtain and serve the citation. The court issues a citation setting a return date. Service must comply with SCPA §§ 306–307: personal service within the state generally at least 10 days before the return date, with longer periods for service outside New York.
- Return date and appearances. Interested parties appear and may consent, default or object. Consents from all adult remaindermen substantially simplify the case, though the court must still make the statutory findings.
- Hearing. EPTL 7-1.6 expressly requires a hearing on notice. In uncontested matters this may be brief and largely on papers; in contested matters expect testimony about the beneficiary’s needs and resources and argument over the creator’s intent, sometimes with extrinsic evidence.
- Decree. If satisfied, the court issues a decree authorizing the trustee to pay the allowance. Courts frequently prefer periodic allowances subject to review over large lump sums, because periodic relief preserves supervision and matches the statute’s support rationale.
- Ongoing administration. The trustee accounts for the invasions in its regular accountings. If circumstances change, any party may petition to modify or terminate the allowance.
Timing and Deadlines
| Question | Timing rule |
|---|---|
| When can the petition be brought | No statute of limitations bars it; it may be brought at any time during the trust’s existence when the need arises. Relief is prospective, and the statute is not a vehicle to reimburse past expenditures, so a beneficiary should petition when the shortfall emerges, not years later. |
| Citation service | Deadlines under SCPA § 307 must be met: generally not less than 10 days before the return date for personal service in New York, with extended periods for other methods. |
| Realistic duration | An uncontested petition with cooperative remaindermen can move from filing to decree in roughly two to four months, depending on the court’s calendar. Contested proceedings, or those requiring a guardian ad litem, commonly take six months to a year or more. |
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Overlooking an opt-out clause | If the instrument prohibits invasion or expressly negates EPTL 7-1.6, the petition is dead on arrival. Read the whole document, including boilerplate articles. |
| Thin financial proof | Conclusory claims of need fail. Courts expect line-item budgets, medical documentation, account statements and tax returns establishing that the beneficiary’s own resources plus trust income genuinely fall short. |
| Ignoring the beneficiary’s other resources | Petitioners who fail to disclose outside assets lose credibility and, usually, the case. Address independent resources head-on and explain why they are insufficient or should not have to be exhausted given the creator’s intent. |
| Misreading the creator’s intent | Where the instrument shows the remainder was the creator’s primary concern, the “effectuates the intention” element cannot be met no matter how sympathetic the need. |
| Defective notice | Failing to cite a contingent remainderman, or misusing virtual representation under SCPA § 315, leaves the decree open to attack. Map the full class of beneficially interested persons before filing. |
| Requesting too much | A demand that would rapidly exhaust principal invites denial. Tailored periodic allowances tied to a documented shortfall fare far better than large lump-sum requests. |
EPTL 7-1.6 and Medicaid Trust Drafting
EPTL 7-1.6 has a second life in elder law. Because the statute lets a court reach principal for an income beneficiary’s support, the theoretical availability of a 7-1.6 invasion could be argued to make trust principal an available resource for Medicaid eligibility purposes. For that reason, competently drafted irrevocable Medicaid asset protection trusts in New York routinely include an express provision stating that no court shall have the power under EPTL 7-1.6 (or any similar statute) to invade principal for the benefit of the grantor or the grantor’s spouse. Because the statute applies only “unless otherwise provided in the disposing instrument,” this opt-out is effective. If you are reviewing an existing trust for Medicaid purposes, the presence or absence of this clause matters greatly.
Related New York Statutes to Distinguish
| Statute | What It Does | How It Differs from EPTL 7-1.6 |
|---|---|---|
| EPTL 7-1.6 | Court-ordered allowance from principal for an income beneficiary’s support or education | Requires a court proceeding, a hearing, and a finding that invasion effectuates the creator’s intent |
| EPTL 7-1.9 | Amendment or revocation of a trust with the written consent of the creator and all beneficially interested persons | Requires a living creator and unanimous consent; no court finding of need |
| EPTL 10-6.6 | Decanting: a trustee with invasion power pours assets into a new trust | Trustee-driven; requires an existing power to invade principal, which is the very thing missing in 7-1.6 cases |
| EPTL 7-1.19 | Early termination of an uneconomical trust where continuation is not warranted | Ends the trust entirely rather than supplementing one beneficiary’s support |
Where the trustee already holds a discretionary power to invade principal under the instrument itself, no EPTL 7-1.6 proceeding is needed. The remedy for a trustee who refuses to exercise that power is a proceeding to compel or review the exercise of discretion, a different analysis under different standards.
Getting Help
We represent income beneficiaries, trustees and remaindermen in EPTL 7-1.6 proceedings and related trust matters in New York Surrogate’s Court, including evaluating whether an instrument permits invasion, preparing and prosecuting petitions, and defending against invasions that would defeat the trust creator’s intent. Related resources on this site: irrevocable trust attorney and living trust attorney.
Trust Income Is Not Enough to Live On?
We petition under EPTL 7-1.6 to unlock principal for income beneficiaries, and we defend remainder beneficiaries when an invasion application overreaches. The statutory findings are technical; the petition has to be built for them. Call us at 212-233-1233 or email [email protected] for a consultation.
About the Author
Albert Goodwin Esq. is a licensed New York attorney with over 18 years of courtroom experience. His extensive knowledge and experience make him well-qualified to write authoritative articles on a wide range of legal topics. He can be reached at 212-233-1233 or [email protected].
