In 1995, the decedents created a revocable living trust in which they specified that their property was to be distributed equally among their three children. In 2000, they amended paragraph 3.4 to provide that the farm assets were to be distributed to the daughter. In 2006, they again amended the trust, replacing paragraph 3.4 with a paragraph again distributing all assets equally among their children. After the death of the second decedent, the trustee (a bank) sought to reach a family agreement as to asset distribution. The daughter contended, however, that she was still entitled to all of the farm assets. The district court ruled that the amendment unambiguously stated that the property, including the farmland, was to be distributed equally among the three children. The daughter appealed, arguing that she was entitled to discovery to show that her parents intended for her to receive the farm property. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the district court did not err in ruling that the property should be distributed in equal shares. Because the amendment was unambiguous, no evidentiary hearing was required. In re H & A Neumann Revocable Trust, A13-1150, 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 313 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2014).