Restatements are not mere summaries of existing law. From their inception, they were intended to clarify uncertainty, simplify complexity, and promote improvements where the law no longer serves real-world needs.
Whether a new Restatement is warranted depends on circumstances. Some Restatements remain authoritative for decades. Others become outdated quickly when practice or legislation moves faster than doctrine.
Gallanis offers a concrete illustration. The Restatement (Second) of Property: Donative Transfers was approved in 1990, but that same year brought the reporter’s death and major changes to succession law through the 1990 revisions to the Uniform Probate Code. In other words, even a freshly approved Restatement can face immediate pressure when the surrounding legal landscape shifts.
Gallanis’s point is that trust law has changed since the publication of the Restatement (Third) of Trusts. He highlights several topics—directed trusts, trust decanting, and non-court mechanisms for resolving trust disputes—on which the current Restatement is now out of date or silent, helping explain why the case for a new Restatement has become more pressing.
When Restatements lag behind important developments, courts and lawyers may lack a shared analytical vocabulary for addressing recurring issues—precisely the role Restatements are meant to play.
Leave a Comment