If a grantor decides to unambiguously supplant prior language in the trust instrument, should she “amend” the language or “revoke and replace” it?

In the unpublished opinion, In Re The H&A Neumann Revocable Trust, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota found that the language would be supplanted either way. The beneficiary of a trust claimed that when the grantors “amended” a paragraph, they inserted language but did not replace language. The court decided that under the circumstances the amendment did supplant the prior language and that explicitly revoking and replacing the prior language was unnecessary. Still, drafters may want to review their form language to ensure it says what they really want it to say.