Revocable Living Trust

This is a SINGLE-SETTLOR instrument. Married customers each create their own trust in v1; the intake marital-status field carries that honesty copy, the married recital states this instrument is the settlor individual trust, the checker FORBIDS joint-settlor drafting language (we declare / our trust / co-settlor), and Article VIII recites 'I am the only settlor of this trust.' A joint or community-property trust (KRS 386B.6-020(2) contemplates multi-settlor revocation mechanics) requires individually-tailored attorney drafting outside this engagement. Confirm the v1 exclusion and the routing copy. CRITIC F4 EXTENSION (2026-06-10): the married path performs NO surviving-spouse protection screening - a married settlor can route 100% of the residual away from the spouse with only the generic married warning firing. Kentucky spousal-rights doctrine (KRS Chapter 392 dower/distributive share) vs revocable-trust assets is NOT grounded in the v1 source library (no KRS 392 pull); the checker married warning now names this exposure. Elton: ground the KRS 392 interaction before launch.

Article III defines settlor incapacity (the successor-trustee trigger) conservatively as EITHER (a) a written certification by the settlor attending physician that the settlor is unable to manage the settlor financial affairs, OR (b) the appointment by a court of a guardian or conservator for the settlor. Chapter 386B prescribes no incapacity-determination mechanism for the settlor-trustee handoff (KRS 386B.6-030 speaks of 'the reasonable belief of the trustee' about capacity to revoke; KRS 386B.6-020(6) addresses conservator/guardian exercise of revocation powers with court approval - recited in Article I). One-physician certification is the customer-friendly default; common alternatives are two-physician certification or a named-committee mechanism. Ratify the mechanism or direct a stricter one.

Article I states a revocation/amendment method (signed writing delivered to the then-serving trustee during the settlor lifetime) and EXPRESSLY does not make it exclusive, so the KRS 386B.6-020(3)(b) fallback channels remain open - including 386B.6-020(3)(b)1 revocation by a later will or codicil that expressly refers to the trust or specifically devises property that would otherwise have passed according to the terms of the trust (quoted verbatim in the document), and (3)(b)2 any other method manifesting clear and convincing evidence of intent. The alternative drafting posture (exclusive method, will-channel closed) gives more certainty but defeats casual customer expectations and the pour-over coordination story. Ratify not-exclusive.

The intake spendthrift checkbox defaults TRUE (standard practice). The composed provision tracks the KRS 386B.5-020(4)-(5) restraint formula ('shall not be alienable by the beneficiary and shall not be subject to alienation by operation of law or legal process') and the KRS 386B.1-010 both-voluntary-and-involuntary definition, RESTRAINS ONLY NON-SETTLOR BENEFICIARIES, and states the two statutory honesty limits in text: KRS 386B.5-020(7)(a) (a self-settled restraint does not protect the settlor own interest) and KRS 386B.5-020(6) (statutory exception claims remain enforceable). When the customer unchecks it, the article renders an express 'None' statement and the checker asserts the restraint formula is ABSENT. Ratify default-on and the honesty framing.

The optional age-delay provision (intake ages 21/25/30/35; the intake UI offers these four milestone ages because the IntakeShell component library has no select control - a radio with 15 options for every age 21-35 was rejected for UX; the normalizer accepts any age 21-35 from pre-shaped payloads and composes an attorney-review marker outside that range) holds a young beneficiary share in a continued trust with interim distributions for the beneficiary health, education, support, or maintenance - the KRS 386B.1-010 ascertainable-standard formula (26 U.S.C. 2041(b)(1)(A) safe-harbor phrasing) - with outright distribution at the elected age and a predecease fallback (descendants per stirpes, else the other residual beneficiaries). Ratify the bounds, the four-age UI compromise, and the ascertainable-standard phrasing.

Article IV requests/directs no bond and rests on the TRUE cites: KRS 386B.7-020(1) (a trustee gives bond ONLY if the court finds a bond is needed to protect the interests of the beneficiaries OR the terms require one and the court has not dispensed with it - this instrument terms expressly require none) AND the honesty rider that KRS 386B.1-030(2)(f) makes the court bond power a mandatory rule the trust terms cannot oust. No false cite is rendered; there is no Chapter 386B analog of the will-side KRS 395.130 waiver and none is claimed. Ratify the framing.

Article VI incorporates the KRS 386B.8-150 general powers and the KRS 386B.8-160 enumerated specific powers BY REFERENCE (quoting the 8-150 unmarried-competent-owner formula verbatim) plus a five-item practical list (sell/lease/invest/distribute-in-kind/hire professionals). The alternative - reciting all 30 KRS 386B.8-160 powers in full - adds ~3 pages with no legal gain under an incorporation clause. NO EXCULPATION clause is included (Article VI says so expressly): KRS 386B.10-080 narrowly polices exculpatory terms, and an exculpation drafted into a flat-fee consumer product by the drafting firm would trigger the 10-080(2) drafted-by-trustee presumption analysis if a JL-affiliated trustee ever served, so v1 omits it. Ratify both calls.

2026 Ky. SB 50 (codified as 2026 ch. 134; pulled at 386B-2026-adds.txt with PLACEHOLDER section numbers '386B.___') adds the Uniform Directed Trust Act (Act Sections 70-86: trust directors, powers of direction, directed-trustee liability) and the Uniform Trust Decanting Act (Act Sections 87-114) to Chapter 386B, with conforming amendments to existing sections this document cites: KRS 386B.1-010 (2026 version adds power-of-direction and trust-director definitions), KRS 386B.1-030(2)(b) (good-faith mandatory rule becomes subject to the directed-trust sections), and KRS 386B.6-030 (2026 version ADDS (1)(b): while revocable the trustee may follow a settlor direction contrary to the terms) - and the 2014 standalone KRS 386B.8-080 (powers to direct) appears in the pull with a '[Repealed]' successor version. IMPACT ON THIS BASIC SINGLE-SETTLOR RLT: minimal by design - the document names no trust director (directed-trust act inapplicable); the decanting act EXPRESSLY applies only to a trust 'that is irrevocable or revocable by the settlor only with the consent of the trustee or a person holding an adverse interest' (Act Section 88 scope), so it cannot reach this trust during the settlor lifetime, though after the settlor death the then-irrevocable trust (including an age-delay hold-back, whose ascertainable standard is 'limited distributive discretion' under the decanting act) becomes decantable by the successor trustee UNLESS the instrument restricts it (Act scope provision: 'a trust instrument may restrict or prohibit exercise of the decanting power'); v1 stays SILENT on decanting (statute governs). KRS 386B.6-020 (revocation) is NOT amended. No SB 50 provision is cited in the document (placeholder numbers are unverifiable until codification; the pull header says 'Current through the 2025 Regular Session'). EFFECTIVE DATE not stated in the pull - Kentucky non-emergency default is approximately 90 days after the 2026 session sine die (mid-2026), i.e., likely IN FORCE by this product summer-2026 launch. ELTON MUST CONFIRM against the codified version at launch: (a) the codified section numbers, (b) the effective date, (c) whether to add an anti-decanting restriction or a decanting acknowledgment, and (d) whether to cite the 2026 version of KRS 386B.6-030(1)(b) (settlor-direction-contrary-to-terms) in Article III. The checker FORBIDS citing KRS 386B.8-080 (repealed by 2026 ch. 134) as cite-rot defense.

catalog.js (revocable-living-trust entry, whoNeedsIt body) says the $300 Johnson Legal execution session 'covers the funding session and the pour-over will.' This template and the engagement letter REPEAT that scope as the catalog states it but FLAG it rather than resolve it: a pour-over will is itself a will (a KRS Chapter 394 instrument with its own $99-product overlap and its own execution formalities), and whether the $300 session genuinely includes drafting + executing a pour-over will, or only the funding work, is a pricing/scope call only Elton can make. The engagement letter describes the session as covering 'the funding session and the pour-over will, per the published catalog description' and routes detail questions to the session engagement itself. CONFIRM the bundling claim or amend the catalog.

The intake beneficiary_is_minor_or_special_needs checkbox changes NO document text; it surfaces a warning-severity checker flag for attorney follow-up before delivery (a drafted special-needs trust is OUT of v1 scope; a direct distribution to a benefits-receiving beneficiary can disqualify them; KRS 386B.5-020(8)(a)4 recognizes special-needs trusts under KRS 387.860 as a distinct structure). Mirrors the guardianship-testamentary flag_6 no-document-text treatment. Confirm.

The trust name is fixed-format: 'The {settlor full name} Revocable Living Trust' - exactly the shape the verified ky-will.v1.json pour-over machinery expects (its pour_over.trust_name placeholder models 'The Margaret Ann Thompson Revocable Living Trust' and its Article III pour-over clause renders 'that certain revocable living trust known as the {name}'). A Will-SKU customer who later buys this trust (or vice versa) gets coordinating instruments without manual renaming. The execution instructions tell the customer to use the exact trust name, word for word, when retitling. Confirm the fixed format (no custom trust names in v1).

KRS 386B.4-020 conditions trust creation on capacity, intention, definite beneficiary, trustee duties, and the not-sole-trustee-sole-beneficiary rule - NOT on notarization or witnesses. The execution block says so honestly (the GS labeling pattern) and includes a notary acknowledgment labeled BEST PRACTICE: financial institutions commonly require an acknowledged instrument, and recording a Kentucky deed conveying real property to the trustee requires acknowledgment. Confirm the honest label (no overclaim that notarization is legally required for validity; no underclaim that skipping it is wise).

Article I recites that because the Article V beneficiaries hold beneficial interests under the instrument, the same person is not the sole trustee and sole beneficiary (KRS 386B.4-020(1)(e)) even though the settlor is both initial trustee and primary lifetime beneficiary. That is the standard analysis for settlor-trusteed revocable trusts (remainder interests defeat merger), but it is a doctrinal recital the reviewing attorney should sanity-check against any common-law merger argument (KRS 386B.1-040 keeps common law supplemental).

Article V recites KRS 386B.5-040(1)(c) (trust property subject at death to settlor creditors, estate administration costs, funeral expenses, and statutory spousal/child allowances TO THE EXTENT the probate estate is inadequate) as an acknowledgment, not advice. This is deliberately customer-visible honesty (the trust is not a creditor-avoidance device) but it is a statutory recital in a consumer document - confirm the verbatim-tracking scope is right for the audience.

When residual-beneficiary percentages do not total 100, the normalizer composes a bracketed ATTORNEY REVIEW marker INTO the rendered residual section (fail-visible, the GS malformed-row lesson) and the checker raises a warning-severity flag plus a critical marker-present check. The alternative (block the render entirely) was rejected so the attorney sees the customer intent in context. Same treatment for malformed residual rows (a row with a percentage but no name renders a marker; rows are never silently dropped). Confirm fail-visible over hard-block.

CRITIC F1 (HIGH, fixed 2026-06-10): Section 2.3 originally asserted flatly that property never retitled does not pass under this instrument - contradicting Section 2.1, which (per the KRS 386B.4-010(2) declaration-of-owner creation method) holds Schedule A property in trust from execution to the extent the settlor holds title. As redrafted, Section 2.3 distinguishes (a) assets neither listed nor retitled (outside the instrument) from (b) listed-but-never-retitled titled assets (declaration recorded, but institutions may refuse recognition and probate may be forced). ELTON PICKS THE RULE: keep the redrafted declaration-method reading, OR make retitling constitutive by the trust terms (delete the Section 2.1 from-execution clause). The two produce different at-death outcomes for listed-never-retitled assets.

CRITIC F10 (2026-06-10): the ultimate fallback in Section 5.6 distributes to heirs at law "determined as though I had died intestate, unmarried as to property passing under this sentence" - standard bloodline-preservation drafting that silently disinherits a surviving spouse at the LAST fallback level (after the residual scheme and the contingent beneficiary have all failed). Defensible default; Elton ratifies or strikes the unmarried qualifier.