Ok legal types, this is for you. At the moment it's an academic question. I'd call our lawyer to ask this but he is currently out of the country spending some of his considerable wealth whooping it up.

Person A owns a piece of property, we'll say it's considerable acreage, in an irrevocable trust he has set up for his heirs/beneficiaries. Person B would like to purchase a particular piece of that property. Not the whole thing, let's say roughly 20% of the total acreage held in trust.
I know that Person A can go to considerable legal expense to get the "irrevocable trust" essentially revoked, but absent that, could the portion of land in question be sold to person B and the proceeds placed back into the trust somehow, essentially not changing it's value?

edit: in case it matters, the sale price of the property would be in excess of the assessed valuation of the land at the time it was placed in trust, so it would actually increase the value of the trust assuming all proceeds went back into it.

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

At it's roots, a trust is a contract. If it's truly irrevocable, the trust is governed by the terms of the trust and if it permits the trustee to sell any or all of the assets for the benefit of the trust/beneficiaries, the trustee may do so, regardless of what the settlor may now desire.

It's just that simple.

For me, step one would be to have the record of the title to the property checked. If it's been properly transferred to the trust, then check with the trustee to see if it can be sold. The trustee doesn't have to disclose all of the terms of the trust, but must represent that they are empowered to sell the property, etc. Naturally, use a lawyer and a good title company.

I would agree with this completely, but state law prevails. Whether selling it is in the best interest of the of the testator or the beneficiaries is another matter. Maybe a long term appreciation strategy? Who knows. Typical "boilerplate" lanuage usually gives the trustee these powers.
Here in NJ, it is the buyer's choice in selecting the Title Agency to do a title search. Dunno about AZ. That, naturally is a must do.

FWIW, I am not an attorney. MTI is an attorney and he lives in AZ now. He's the one to ask.

I am an attorney, though I no longer practice. My areas of practice included real estate, trusts and estates, both in Aridzona and Colorado.

And actually, state law does NOT usually prevail and certainly not in the usual circumstance.

Generally speaking, unless the terms of the trust are illegal (for example, the trust specifically requires dealing in heroin), they control. Where the terms conflict with state law, well, that's where attorneys make money (and malpractice suits may arise).

Moreover, the OP didn't specify where the land is, which is relevant in part, but not really as regards the trust itself, but more as to a transaction to transfer the land. (And, of course, whether the land was properly put into the trust to begin with, which goes back to step one in post #2.)

That said, unless there is a specific law in the state where the land is situated that makes the terms of the trust illegal, then if the terms permit it, the trustee is allowed to act to use the assets of the trust in whatever way is appropriate under the terms of the trust. Period. Even if it later turns out it was NOT in the best terms of the beneficiaries, so long as the transaction was arms-length, it will remain in place and the beneficiaries then have a claim against the trustee.

But the buyer of the trust asset is fine, again so long as the transaction was legitimate.