The ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law has published the Winter 2008 issue of the Real Property, Probate & Trust Journal (Vol. 42, No. 4), with these articles:

• Christopher P. Cline, The Uniform Prudent Investor and Principal and Income Acts: Changing the Trust Landscape, 42 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 611 (2008):

This Article examines the effects the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and the Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act have had on the investment decisions of trustees. Designed to aid trustees in the performance of their duties, these Acts have also presented a number of new challenges for trustees. The Article explores the changes initiated by the Prudent Investor Act and the resulting litigation that has occurred in its wake. The author then analyzes the effects of the power to adjust given to trustees by the Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act.

• Richard W. Nenno, The Power to Adjust and Total-Return Unitrust Statutes:  State Developments and Tax Considerations, 42 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 657 (2008):

This Article discusses two concepts new to trust law: the power to adjust receipts and disbursements between principal and income under section 104 of the Uniform Principal and Income Act and the total-return unitrust statute. The Article examines traditional ways to address the problem trustees have in balancing the demand for increased distributions with their duties as prudent investors, describes recently developed statutory solutions and discusses relevant federal tax considerations.

• S. Alan Medlin, Limitations on the Trustee’s Power to Adjust, 42 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 717 (2008):

This Article examines the Uniform Principal and Income Act’s acceptance of the modern portfolio theory of investment, which focuses on the total return of a trust. The Uniform Principal and Income Act introduces the power to adjust, which allows a trustee to allocate between income and principal based on principles of fairness rather than the type of asset return. The Article analyzes the factors that determine when a trustee has the power to adjust and what limitations on the power might apply. The Article also discusses the hierarchy of judicial remedies available under the Act to guide a trustee uncertain about the power to adjust in a given trust situation.

• Joel C. Dobris, SRI — Shibboleth or Canard (Socially Responsible Investing, That Is), 42 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 755 (2008):

This Article takes a look at the new and increasingly popular phenomenon of socially responsible investing. A topic that has garnered a lot of attention recently, the Article focuses on the intersection of socially responsible investing and trust law. The author’s research includes an eclectic array of interesting and socially relevant sources that culminates in a stimulating analysis of how this new philosophy of investing is likely to affect traditional notions of fiduciary duties in trust investing.

• Steven J. Eagle & Lauren A. Perotti, Coping With Kelo:  A Potpourri of Legislative and Judicial Responses, 42 Real Prop., Prob. & Tr. J. 799 (2008):

This Article examines the legislative and judicial responses to Kelo v. City of New London, which held that takings for economic development satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. A majority of states have responded to the decision by adopting statutes that limit the scope of public use, address just compensation for the taking, or institute procedural reforms for takings. The Article gives a state-by-state description of these responses and also offers state legislatures several alternatives to the use of eminent domain.