State-by-State Uniform Directed Trust Act Adoption in 2026: The Ten-State Framework, Uniform-Text Modifications, and Interaction with Existing State Trust Codes

The directed-trust deep-dive we published August 13, 2026 walked the doctrinal history of the office, the seven paradigm state statutes (Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Michigan), and the Uniform Directed Trust Act as the modern uniform baseline.^[1] That piece treated the UDTA in outline. This piece is the state-by-state companion: which states have adopted the UDTA, when, at what code location, with what modifications from the uniform text promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission in July 2017, and how each state's enactment interacts with its pre-existing trust-code framework.^[2]

The distinction matters because state trust law is genuinely a fifty-state exercise. Ten states have enacted the UDTA. Six of the paradigm-seven states have not (Delaware, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming — Michigan is the seventh and the outlier). Thirty-four additional states offer no dedicated directed-trust statute at all and rely on the Uniform Trust Code §808 baseline (adopted in thirty-six states plus the District of Columbia) or, in the few states that have adopted neither the UDTA nor the UTC, on general common-law principles about the settlor's power to grant direction authority to non-trustees. Where a family situses a trust — and, for a portable trust with an inherited IRA or a see-through-trust structure, where the governing-law clause points — determines which of these frameworks governs.

This piece covers the UDTA framework at the uniform-text level; the ten adopting states in reading order (Michigan, Nebraska, Maine, New Mexico, Arkansas, Indiana, Utah, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia); the systematic uniform-text modifications each state made on enactment; the interaction with each state's pre-existing UTC or non-UTC baseline; the fiduciary-status default comparison across UDTA states and paradigm-seven states; a case study on choosing between a UDTA state and a paradigm-seven state for a $4M inherited-IRA trust; six recurring UDTA-state drafting mistakes; and an eight-item pre-drafting checklist. When you want to run the after-tax drawdown math the directed-trust structure would drive, the CalcLeap retirement calculator, the 401(k) withdrawal calculator, and the Roth conversion calculator handle the year-by-year arithmetic across the SECURE Act 10-year window.

The UDTA framework at the uniform-text level

The Uniform Directed Trust Act was promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission at its July 2017 annual meeting, drafted by a committee chaired by Turney Berry with reporters John Morley of Yale Law School and Robert Sitkoff of Harvard Law School and substantial input from the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC).^[3] The uniform text runs to eighteen sections. The load-bearing provisions for most drafting purposes are §§2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13-16.

The uniform text carries three deliberate policy choices that distinguish it from the older paradigm-seven statutes. First, §8's mandatory fiduciary status — no state statute predating UDTA had imposed fiduciary status by default without permitted waiver. Second, §9's willful-misconduct exception is narrower than the Delaware §3313(b) analog, which incorporates a "manifestly contrary to the terms of the trust" fallback that gives the trustee an easier path to refuse compliance without incurring shield-loss liability. Third, §11's affirmative statement of "no duty to monitor" is more absolute than the older statutes' formulations, which typically stated the same rule as a negative implication rather than as express text.^[4]

Michigan — the paradigm-seven convert (2018)

Michigan is the earliest and most consequential UDTA adopter. The Michigan Legislature enacted the UDTA as Public Act 4 of 2018, effective September 30, 2018, codified at MCL 700.7801 through MCL 700.7817 within the Michigan Trust Code (EPIC Article VII).^[5] The enactment repealed the prior MCL 700.7801 directed-trust provisions that had been in force since the Michigan Trust Code's 2010 enactment.

The pre-UDTA Michigan framework had permitted non-fiduciary trust-director designation by express instrument language, similar to the Delaware §3313(a) framework. The UDTA adoption moved Michigan from that flexibility to §8's mandatory fiduciary status. The switch places Michigan structurally alongside the ten UDTA states rather than the six remaining paradigm-seven states, and is the reason we count Michigan as both a paradigm-seven state (for its 2010-2018 pre-UDTA history) and a UDTA state (for its 2018-forward posture).

Michigan's enactment carried three notable modifications from the uniform text. First, the Michigan version at MCL 700.7809 preserves a limited exception in cases where the trust director is the settlor and the trust is revocable — the director's power is treated as reserved by the settlor and does not create the fiduciary relationship that UDTA §8 would otherwise impose. Second, MCL 700.7811 explicitly addresses coordination with the pre-existing Michigan Trust Code provisions on protector powers under MCL 700.7818, preserving those provisions as a separate framework for oversight-and-adaptation authority not covered by the UDTA. Third, the Michigan enactment expressly extends to trusts moved to Michigan after the effective date, applying UDTA §5's opt-in default to the state's substantial migrant-trust practice.

Nebraska — the second adopter (2018)

Nebraska enacted the UDTA as LB 536, signed by Governor Ricketts on April 18, 2018, effective July 19, 2018, codified within the Nebraska Uniform Trust Code at Neb. Rev. Stat. §30-2801 through §30-2817.^[6] Nebraska had previously adopted the Uniform Trust Code in 2003 as Neb. Rev. Stat. §§30-3801 through 30-38,110. The UDTA sits within this existing framework as a coordinated directed-trust regime.

Nebraska's enactment made the UDTA operative on July 19, 2018 for trusts created on or after that date, and applied it prospectively to trusts created before the effective date to the extent the trust's terms do not conflict with the UDTA's application. This retroactivity approach is more expansive than the Michigan version and mirrors the general Nebraska UTC's approach to the 2003 UTC adoption.

The Nebraska modifications from the uniform text are minor. The definition of "power of direction" in §30-2802 uses the phrase "power that requires the trustee to act" rather than the uniform text's "power that gives the director control over," a clarification the Nebraska legislature added on request of the Nebraska State Bar Association's Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Section. §30-2809's excluded-fiduciary shield tracks UDTA §9 verbatim.

Maine — a UTC state coordinating layers (2018)

Maine enacted the UDTA as Public Law 2017, Chapter 296, signed by Governor LePage on July 4, 2018, effective October 4, 2018, codified as 18-B M.R.S. §1301 through §1316.^[7] Maine adopted the UTC in 2005 as 18-B M.R.S. Chapter 1-11. The UDTA enactment placed the new directed-trust provisions in Chapter 13, immediately following the UTC's own §808 at 18-B M.R.S. §808.

Maine's placement is analytically interesting because it preserves both frameworks side-by-side. A Maine trust drafted before October 4, 2018 that named a trust director under UTC §808 continues to be governed by §808's more limited framework. A Maine trust drafted after that date that names a trust director under Chapter 13 is governed by the UDTA. A trust drafted after the effective date that references only UTC §808 (an increasingly rare drafting choice, but not extinct) would arguably remain under §808 rather than the UDTA — the Maine statute does not explicitly resolve this priority question and Maine appellate courts have not yet issued opinions on the interaction.

The Maine enactment carried one substantive modification from the uniform text: §1308(2) (corresponding to UDTA §8(b)) permits the terms of the trust to reduce the trust director's duties to the extent permitted by 18-B M.R.S. §105 (the Maine UTC's mandatory-and-default-rules provision), a carve-out that gives Maine drafters modestly more flexibility than the pure UDTA baseline while preserving core beneficiary protections.

New Mexico — UDTA in a UTC frame (2018)

New Mexico enacted the UDTA as Senate Bill 100 of the 2018 regular session, signed by Governor Martinez on March 6, 2018, effective July 1, 2018, codified as the New Mexico Uniform Directed Trust Act at NMSA §46B-1-1 through §46B-1-16.^[8] New Mexico adopted the UTC in 2003 as NMSA §46A. The UDTA sits as a companion statute at §46B, separately numbered.

The New Mexico enactment was the first UDTA adoption calendared through a state legislature after the July 2017 Uniform Law Commission promulgation, though Nebraska's LB 536 (introduced January 3, 2018) technically preceded the New Mexico bill in introduction timing. New Mexico's enactment made only trivial modifications from the uniform text — the placeholder "[state]" references in the uniform text were replaced with "New Mexico" and the placeholder "[applicable body]" was replaced with "the district court" as the compulsory-jurisdiction body under UDTA §13.

New Mexico is analytically interesting for a specific reason: New Mexico is a community-property state (one of nine — see the community-property inherited-IRA piece we published on August 11, 2026 for the full framework^[9]). The interaction between the community-property regime and the UDTA's fiduciary-duty rules is untested in New Mexico case law as of August 2026 but is potentially significant for trusts holding inherited IRAs where the underlying account carried community-property character during the account owner's lifetime. Practitioners with retirement-account clients in New Mexico should coordinate the directed-trust drafting with the community-property analysis specifically.

Arkansas — the Southern-jurisdiction anchor (2019)

Arkansas enacted the UDTA as Act 891 of 2019, signed by Governor Hutchinson on April 15, 2019, effective July 24, 2019, codified as the Arkansas Uniform Directed Trust Act at Ark. Code Ann. §28-73-1201 through §28-73-1216.^[10] Arkansas adopted the UTC in 2005 as Ark. Code Ann. §28-73. The UDTA is placed as a new subchapter within the existing Arkansas Trust Code.

Arkansas is the first Southern-jurisdiction UDTA adopter and remains, as of August 2026, the anchor for the framework in the U.S. South. Georgia followed in 2020 (below); no other state in the traditional Southern census region has adopted the UDTA. The Arkansas enactment tracks the uniform text more closely than Michigan or Maine — the placeholder replacements are the only material modifications, and the Arkansas Uniform Trust Code's existing framework at §28-73 provides all the interpretive infrastructure needed to apply the UDTA in practice.

Arkansas's directed-trust framework is complemented by the Arkansas Legacy Trust Act of 2007 at Ark. Code Ann. §28-73-501 through §28-73-513, which provides an asset-protection-trust regime that pairs with the directed-trust framework in the same way Alaska's asset-protection statute at AS 34.40.110 pairs with AS 13.36.375. The pairing is a competitive-positioning choice by the Arkansas Legislature, positioning the state as an alternative to Delaware for domestic asset-protection-trust practice.

Indiana — a non-UTC state (2019)

Indiana enacted the UDTA as Public Law 78-2019, signed by Governor Holcomb on April 24, 2019, effective July 1, 2019, codified at Ind. Code §30-4-9-1 through §30-4-9-16.^[11] Indiana is notable within the UDTA-adopting cohort as the only state that has never adopted the Uniform Trust Code — Indiana's trust code at Ind. Code §30-4 is a separately-drafted statute predating the UTC's 2000 promulgation.

Indiana's non-UTC status makes the UDTA's placement analytically distinctive. The uniform text assumes an existing UTC framework for its coordination provisions — the UTC's mandatory-and-default-rules structure at §105, the UTC's trustee-duty framework at §§801-817, and the UTC's own directed-trust provision at §808 — none of which exist in Indiana. The Indiana enactment therefore had to graft the UDTA onto a substantially different trust-code architecture.

The Indiana enactment made three material modifications from the uniform text to accomplish this graft. First, Ind. Code §30-4-9-2's definitions section incorporates cross-references to the Indiana Trust Code's existing fiduciary-duty framework at §30-4-3 rather than to UTC §§801-817 (which do not exist in Indiana). Second, §30-4-9-8's fiduciary-duty provision (corresponding to UDTA §8) uses the Indiana-specific "same duty of loyalty and same duty of care as a trustee under IC 30-4-3-6" formulation rather than the uniform text's cross-reference to comparable-sole-trustee duties. Third, §30-4-9-9 (excluded-fiduciary shield) is coordinated with the Indiana Trust Code's own trustee-exculpation provisions at §30-4-3-32 to avoid double-shielding overlap.

Utah — a UTC state with local adjustments (2019)

Utah enacted the UDTA as House Bill 133 of the 2019 general session, signed by Governor Herbert on March 25, 2019, effective May 14, 2019, codified as the Utah Uniform Directed Trust Act at Utah Code §75-16-101 through §75-16-116 within the Utah Uniform Probate Code.^[12] Utah adopted the UTC in 2004 as Utah Code §75-7-101 through §75-7-1102. The UDTA is placed as a separate chapter within Title 75 (Probate Code) rather than as a subchapter within Chapter 7 (Utah Uniform Trust Code) — a placement choice that keeps the two frameworks structurally distinct.

Utah's modifications from the uniform text are two: §75-16-108's fiduciary-duty provision adds an express reference to the Utah UTC's prudent-investor standard at §75-7-901 (rather than leaving the standard implicit in the "same duty as a sole trustee" cross-reference), and §75-16-113's compulsory-jurisdiction provision specifies "district courts of general jurisdiction" as the applicable body. Neither modification is substantive — both are drafting-clarity improvements that Utah practitioners had requested.

Utah's Uniform Probate Code placement makes the UDTA fully accessible to trusts administered under Utah's probate court supervision, which is a design choice that supports Utah's growing trust-and-estates practice around Salt Lake City's professional-services cluster. Utah pairs the directed-trust framework with its Utah Domestic Asset Protection Trust Act at Utah Code §25-6-501 through §25-6-506, positioning Utah as a mid-tier alternative to Delaware and Nevada in the domestic asset-protection space.

Colorado — the standalone-article approach (2020)

Colorado enacted the UDTA as Senate Bill 20-018, signed by Governor Polis on July 8, 2020, effective September 14, 2020, codified as the Colorado Uniform Directed Trust Act at C.R.S. §15-16.5-101 through §15-16.5-116.^[13] Colorado adopted the UTC in 2019 as C.R.S. §15-5-101 through §15-5-1206 — the UTC and UDTA enactments were close in time, and Colorado's placement of the UDTA in a separate article (§15-16.5) rather than as a subchapter within the UTC (§15-5) is a deliberate structural choice to keep the two regimes analytically distinct.

Colorado is the first standalone-article UDTA adopter. Michigan (EPIC integration), Nebraska (UTC integration), Maine (post-UTC chapter), New Mexico (companion statute), Arkansas (UTC subchapter), Indiana (non-UTC standalone chapter), and Utah (Probate Code chapter) each placed the UDTA in some proximity to the state's existing trust code. Colorado's separate-article placement is the least integrated of the ten and sets the pattern that Connecticut and Georgia later followed.

Colorado's modifications from the uniform text are minimal. §15-16.5-108's fiduciary-duty provision adopts the uniform text's fiduciary-default rule without modification. §15-16.5-109's excluded-fiduciary shield tracks UDTA §9 verbatim. The Colorado Bar Association's Trust and Estate Section recommended the standalone-article placement in part to signal to practitioners that the UDTA is a distinct regime requiring separate drafting attention rather than a subset of the general Colorado UTC.

Connecticut — the New England anchor (2020)

Connecticut enacted the UDTA as Public Act 19-137, signed by Governor Lamont on July 12, 2019 and effective on a delayed date of January 1, 2020, codified as the Connecticut Uniform Directed Trust Act at Conn. Gen. Stat. §45a-499iii through §45a-499xxx (using Connecticut's Roman-numeral subsection convention within Chapter 802c).^[14] Connecticut adopted the UTC in the same 2019 legislative session as Public Act 19-137's UTC component (codified at §45a-499a through §45a-499hhh) — the UTC and UDTA were enacted in a single omnibus trust-law modernization bill.

Connecticut's single-bill enactment is analytically distinctive within the UDTA cohort. Where Michigan, Nebraska, Maine, New Mexico, Arkansas, Indiana, Utah, and Colorado each had a pre-existing state trust code (UTC or non-UTC) that predated their UDTA adoption by years or decades, Connecticut's UTC and UDTA became state law simultaneously. The single-bill approach was driven by the Connecticut Bar Association's Estates and Probate Section, which viewed the UDTA as an integral part of any modern trust code and pushed for coordinated enactment.

Connecticut's modifications from the uniform text are minor. The Connecticut version at §45a-499iii uses "power of direction" as the primary defined term rather than the uniform text's parallel use of "power" and "power of direction" as near-synonyms — a drafting-clarity improvement. §45a-499xxx (Section 16 of the uniform text — office of trust director) adds an explicit acceptance-by-signature requirement in addition to the uniform text's acceptance-by-conduct default, tightening the office-acceptance mechanics.

Georgia — the second Southern anchor (2020)

Georgia enacted the UDTA as Senate Bill 289 of the 2020 regular session, signed by Governor Kemp on August 5, 2020, effective July 1, 2021, codified as the Georgia Uniform Directed Trust Act at O.C.G.A. §53-12-500 through §53-12-516 within the Georgia Revised Trust Code (Title 53, Chapter 12).^[15] Georgia has never adopted the Uniform Trust Code — Georgia's trust code at O.C.G.A. §53-12 is a separately-drafted statute more similar to Indiana's non-UTC framework than to the UTC-adopting states.

Georgia's non-UTC status places it in a similar posture to Indiana in the UDTA-adopting cohort: the uniform text's coordination assumptions about an existing UTC framework do not apply, and the Georgia enactment had to graft the UDTA onto a distinct trust-code architecture. Georgia handled this graft differently than Indiana. Where Indiana added state-specific cross-references throughout, Georgia added a single interpretive provision at O.C.G.A. §53-12-501(b) directing that UDTA cross-references to "sole trustee" duties should be interpreted by reference to the trustee-duty provisions of the Georgia Revised Trust Code at O.C.G.A. §53-12-240 through §53-12-284.

Georgia's July 2021 delayed effective date is the latest among the ten adopting states. The delay was included in the enactment bill at the request of the Georgia Bar Association's Fiduciary Law Section to allow time for practitioner education and form-book updates. The delay also positioned Georgia's UDTA as the last state to enter the framework before the post-2020 legislative slowdown — no additional state has adopted the UDTA between 2021 and August 2026, despite bills introduced in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Washington during that period.

Fiduciary-status defaults compared across the ten UDTA states and paradigm-seven

The fiduciary-status default for the trust director is the single most consequential drafting choice after the choice of governing-law state. The ten UDTA states carry uniform mandatory-fiduciary status without permitted waiver. The paradigm-seven states — six of which have not adopted the UDTA — permit varying degrees of non-fiduciary designation. The comparison:

The practical implication: a family that wants a non-fiduciary trust director for a business-purpose reason (typically to give a family-member director the ability to prioritize the settlor's expressed intent over strict beneficiary-first analysis) must situs the trust in one of the paradigm-seven states other than Michigan. A UDTA-state situs precludes non-fiduciary designation regardless of the trust's terms.

The middle-ground drafting most modern practitioners use — fiduciary designation with a carefully drafted exculpation clause covering simple negligence but retaining liability for gross negligence and willful misconduct — is available in both UDTA states and paradigm-seven states. UDTA §8(b) permits the terms of the trust to modify the fiduciary duties within reasonable bounds, and every UDTA-state enactment carries some version of this permitted-modification provision. The middle-ground approach captures most of the practical benefit of non-fiduciary designation (professional directors can serve without existential litigation risk from simple business-judgment mistakes) without exposing beneficiaries to unrecoverable losses from genuinely culpable conduct.

Case study: choosing between Colorado and Nevada for a $4M inherited-IRA trust

Consider a family with a $4M inherited-IRA trust for the benefit of two adult beneficiaries — a Colorado resident and a Texas resident. The Colorado beneficiary is 42, has $220K of W-2 income, and expects to remain a Colorado resident throughout the SECURE Act 10-year window. The Texas beneficiary is 38, has variable business income averaging $180K annually, and expects to remain a Texas resident. The family is choosing between two governing-law options: Colorado (a UDTA state with the family's Colorado attorney's local expertise) and Nevada (a paradigm-seven state with more established directed-trust infrastructure and no state trust income tax).

Option A: Colorado situs under C.R.S. §15-16.5

The Colorado situs uses C.R.S. §15-16.5 as the governing framework. The trust names a Colorado corporate trustee (Colorado State Bank & Trust) as administrative trustee, names a Denver-based independent investment adviser as trust director for investment authority, and names two distribution directors (one per beneficiary) each holding binding authority over their assigned beneficiary's distributions. Each director is a fiduciary by mandatory UDTA §8 status.

Colorado state trust income tax applies to the trust's undistributed income at Colorado's 4.4% flat rate (as of tax year 2026 under C.R.S. §39-22-104(1.7)). For a conduit trust that distributes all IRA distributions in the year of receipt, this tax is inapplicable — the distributions pass through to the beneficiaries at their respective state rates (Colorado 4.4% for the Colorado beneficiary; zero for the Texas beneficiary). For an accumulation trust that retains distributions inside the trust, Colorado's 4.4% adds directly to the federal-compressed-trust-bracket rate, reaching a combined 41.4% top rate at just $15,650 of trust taxable income under Rev. Proc. 2025-32.^[16]

Year-one estimated fee structure: Colorado State Bank & Trust administrative-only pricing at 25 basis points ($10,000), Denver investment adviser at 40 basis points ($16,000), two distribution directors at $2,500 each ($5,000 total). Total year-one fee: $31,000. Estimated fee across the 10-year window (compounded): approximately $290,000 assuming 6% average trust return.

Option B: Nevada situs under NRS 163.556

The Nevada situs uses NRS 163.556 as the governing framework. The trust names Premier Trust of Nevada as administrative trustee, names the same Denver-based independent investment adviser as trust adviser for investment authority (permitted under the Colorado adviser's Nevada RIA registration), and names the two distribution directors. The Nevada framework permits the trust instrument to designate the investment adviser as non-fiduciary — the family chooses fiduciary-plus-exculpation for the investment adviser and non-fiduciary for the two distribution directors (a design permitted under Nevada NRS 163.556 that would be unavailable in Colorado under mandatory UDTA §8).

Nevada has no state trust income tax (NRS Chapter 366 imposes no fiduciary income tax on trust-retained income). For a conduit trust the state-tax outcome is identical to the Colorado situs (distributions pass through to the beneficiaries at their state rates). For an accumulation trust the Nevada situs saves 4.4% on retained income — worth approximately $2,000-$6,000 per year depending on how much income is accumulated, and $18,000-$55,000 across the 10-year window.

Year-one estimated fee structure: Premier Trust administrative-only pricing at 30 basis points ($12,000, slightly higher than Colorado reflecting the trust's out-of-state situs), same Denver investment adviser at 40 basis points ($16,000), two non-fiduciary distribution directors at $2,000 each ($4,000 total, slightly lower reflecting the reduced litigation risk). Total year-one fee: $32,000. Estimated fee across the 10-year window: approximately $300,000.

The trade-off analysis

The two options are close on total 10-year cost. The Colorado situs is roughly $10,000 cheaper on fees over the window; the Nevada situs is roughly $18,000-$55,000 cheaper on state trust income tax if the trust accumulates any income. On net, the Nevada option is roughly $8,000-$45,000 more favorable across the 10-year window, driven primarily by the state-tax saving.

The non-financial dimensions matter as much as the dollar comparison. The Colorado situs offers proximity to the family's existing attorney relationship (potentially $3,000-$5,000 in reduced coordination cost per year), keeps the trust within a familiar legal environment, and avoids the friction of a multi-state trust administration. The Nevada situs offers the non-fiduciary designation for distribution directors (a real drafting flexibility if the family wants family-member directors), the state-tax saving on accumulation, and the deeper interpretive body of Nevada directed-trust case law that has accumulated over the 2005-2026 period.

For this specific family, the recommendation would depend on drafting priorities. If the family is comfortable with mandatory fiduciary status for the distribution directors and values the local-relationship simplicity, Colorado is the right answer. If the family wants non-fiduciary flexibility, expects material trust-income accumulation, and can absorb the modest multi-state coordination cost, Nevada is the right answer. The choice is close enough that either can be defended on the facts.

Six recurring UDTA-state drafting mistakes

1. Attempting non-fiduciary designation in a UDTA state. A trust drafted with instrument language purporting to designate the trust director as non-fiduciary in a UDTA state is not enforceable — UDTA §8 imposes fiduciary status by default with no permitted waiver, and every one of the ten UDTA-state enactments carries this rule verbatim (or with only clarifying modifications). Practitioners drafting under the UDTA in these states should assume mandatory fiduciary status and design the exculpation-and-indemnification framework to bring the effective liability exposure to the intended level. If genuine non-fiduciary designation is required, the trust must situs in a paradigm-seven state other than Michigan.
2. Failing to enumerate the trust director's authority scope with precision. The excluded-fiduciary shield protects the trustee only when the direction is within the director's granted authority. Ambiguous authority grants (e.g., "the investment director shall have authority over investment decisions") create gaps where beneficiaries can argue the trustee acted without direction and therefore without shield protection. The best practice is to enumerate the specific decisions inside each authority grant — asset selection, custodian selection, transaction execution, veto over trustee-initiated allocations — with the intended scope of each expressly stated.
3. Failing to name a successor director and a mechanism for further succession. A director office that goes vacant loses its function entirely; the trustee's authority does not automatically expand to fill the gap. UDTA §16 provides the acceptance-and-resignation mechanics but does not automatically fill vacancies. Every director role should carry at least one named successor plus a mechanism for further-succession appointment — typically by the trust protector, by a designated appointer, or by majority vote of adult beneficiaries.
4. Using pre-UDTA drafting language in Michigan. Michigan replaced its prior non-fiduciary-permitted directed-trust regime with the UDTA effective September 30, 2018. A trust drafted before that date using non-fiduciary designation language may still enforce that designation under transition rules, but a trust drafted after that date using the same language is enforcing an unenforceable designation. Michigan is the only paradigm-seven convert and the only state where this specific transition issue arises.
5. Choosing a UDTA state when drafting priorities require paradigm-seven flexibility. The most common version of this mistake is a family with a small business owned by the trust corpus wanting a family-member director to control the business decisions on the settlor's expressed direction (non-fiduciary, so the director cannot be sued by beneficiaries for continuing an underperforming family business). A UDTA-state situs precludes this design. Practitioners should identify the non-fiduciary use case up front and situs accordingly, rather than discovering the constraint mid-drafting.
6. Failing to coordinate with the IRA custodian's beneficiary designation form. The trust's UDTA architecture is irrelevant if the IRA custodian's beneficiary designation form names an individual instead of the trust, names the wrong trust (a common issue where the family has multiple trusts drafted over decades), or names the trust in a way that fails the see-through documentation requirement under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-4(f) as amended by TD 10001.^[17] Every UDTA-state inherited-IRA trust drafting engagement should include an explicit verification of the beneficiary designation form on file with each IRA custodian, and confirmation that the trust is properly documented as the beneficiary within the nine-month post-death documentation window. See the custodian titling failure modes deep-dive we published August 3, 2026 for the full framework.^[18]

Action checklist for a family drafting an inherited-IRA trust in a UDTA state

Frequently asked questions