The Uniform Trust Code (UTC) is a model statute, not federal law. A state or the District of Columbia decides whether to enact it and may change its text, add related laws, or retain older provisions. That means the phrase “UTC state” is a useful starting point, not an answer to a trustee's actual notice, reporting, investment, creditor, or limitation question.
As checked on August 21, 2026, the Uniform Law Commission's current Trust Code enactment record identifies 37 jurisdictions: 36 states and the District of Columbia. The table links to the corresponding TrustHelm state guide rather than repeating it.
How to read this list
The adoption year and enacting bill in the table come from the Uniform Law Commission's current enactment record and legislative bill record, checked on the date above. The year is the enactment year in that record; it may differ from the date a statute became effective. The final column is only a signpost to a meaningful local variation or overlay, not a complete comparison of state law.
For example, the current record includes Oklahoma because its UTC took effect in 2025, while South Dakota is not on the ULC's UTC enactment list. South Dakota has a substantial state trust-law framework; its absence here does not mean it lacks trust statutes.
UTC adoption table
| State or district | Adoption year | Enacting citation (ULC record) | Notable deviation or local feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 2006 | HB 49 / SB 157 | Two-year disclosed-claim period; Alabama's Qualified Dispositions in Trust Act sits alongside the UTC. |
| Arizona | 2008 | HB 2806 | Community-property treatment and a long statutory trust-duration rule are important overlays. |
| Arkansas | 2005 | SB 336 | Relatively close UTC framework; Arkansas homestead rules can still affect trust-held property. |
| Colorado | 2018 | SB 180 | A qualifying report starts a one-year claim period, with a shorter outer period than the UTC default. |
| Connecticut | 2019 | HB 7104 | The code became effective in 2020; 800-year duration and later directed-trust and decanting acts are separate overlays. |
| District of Columbia | 2004 | Bill 15-234 | District estate-tax and spousal-rights rules operate alongside the UTC. |
| Florida | 2006 | SB 1170 | A six-month accounting limitation notice, homestead rules, and strong discretionary-trust creditor protection materially shape administration. |
| Hawaii | 2021 | SB 385 | Effective in 2022; Hawaii uses its own trust-contest, distribution-objection, and breach-claim deadlines. |
| Illinois | 2019 | HB 1471 | The 2020 code preserves a different revocability default and has transition-based reporting and limitation rules. |
| Kansas | 2002 | SB 297 | First UTC enactment; later decanting, directed-trust, and duration legislation supplements the code. |
| Kentucky | 2014 | HB 78 | A disclosed claim can have a one-year window; Kentucky also has its own inheritance-tax and court-jurisdiction rules. |
| Maine | 2004 | LD 921 | The UTC is supplemented by a later Uniform Trust Decanting Act and Maine estate-tax rules. |
| Maryland | 2014 | HB 83 | Maryland's estate and inheritance taxes are separate, important overlays to the UTC framework. |
| Massachusetts | 2012 | HB 4223 | Its breach-claim scheme includes short final-account windows and differs substantially from the UTC's ordinary limitation structure. |
| Michigan | 2009 | SB 387 | Annual accounting is generally nonwaivable; a designated-representative silent-trust mechanism is a limited exception. |
| Minnesota | 2015 | SF 578 | No standard UTC 60-day irrevocability notice; reporting and breach-claim periods use Minnesota's own timetable. |
| Mississippi | 2014 | SB 2727 | A relatively recent and generally close codification, now found in Mississippi Code chapter 91-8. |
| Missouri | 2004 | HB 1511 | Perpetual-duration and directed-trust provisions supplement the UTC structure. |
| Montana | 2013 | SB 251 | Relatively close UTC adoption; state-specific land, mineral, and tax questions remain outside the model code. |
| Nebraska | 2003 | LB 130 | A trust can opt out of the perpetuities rule under stated conditions; inheritance-tax rules are separate. |
| New Hampshire | 2004 | HB 1224 | Quiet-trust, perpetual-duration, asset-protection, and directed-trust provisions are significant state additions. |
| New Jersey | 2016 | AB 2915 | The UTC itself is relatively close to the model, while separate perpetuities and power-of-alienation rules matter for duration. |
| New Mexico | 2003 | HB 48 | Its Prudent Investor Act remains outside the UTC chapter; community-property treatment also matters. |
| North Carolina | 2005 | SB 679 | North Carolina does not use the UTC's usual initial 60-day notice provisions and has its own beneficiary-information framework. |
| North Dakota | 2007 | HB 1034 | Relatively close UTC framework; separate agricultural, mineral, and energy-property issues can be central in practice. |
| Ohio | 2006 | HB 416 | A beneficiary-surrogate option can redirect information rights; separate statutes allow long-duration and asset-protection trusts. |
| Oklahoma | 2025 | HB 1850 | The new UTC coexists with the older Oklahoma Trust Act where the provisions are not inconsistent. |
| Oregon | 2005 | SB 275 | The UTC operates beside Oregon's estate-tax and imported-community-property rules. |
| Pennsylvania | 2006 | SB 660 | Pennsylvania rewrites the information-and-reporting rules and uses a 30-month disclosure-based limitation shield. |
| South Carolina | 2005 | SB 422 / HB 3487 | The duty to inform can be modified by the trust terms, allowing a form of silent trust. |
| Tennessee | 2004 | HB 743 / SB 560 | Trust terms can limit information rights; long-duration and asset-protection statutes also supplement the UTC. |
| Utah | 2004 | SB 47 | Later recodification moved current trust provisions to Title 75B; duration and asset-protection rules have also expanded. |
| Vermont | 2009 | SB 86 | The duty to inform and report is a default rule, allowing the trust terms to create a quiet-trust arrangement. |
| Virginia | 2005 | SB 891 | Generally a close UTC adoption, with state provisions for trust protectors and investment-direction roles. |
| West Virginia | 2011 | HB 2551 | A relatively close UTC framework; West Virginia resident-trust income-tax rules are a separate practical overlay. |
| Wisconsin | 2014 | SB 384 | Relatively close UTC framework, with the state's marital-property system affecting trust funding and ownership. |
| Wyoming | 2003 | HB 77 | Information rights can be modified for quiet trusts; long-duration, directed-trust, and asset-protection rules are major additions. |
The table's bill identifiers identify the enactments in the ULC record; they are not substitutes for the current codified text. A state can amend its trust statute after initial enactment, and a trust may also be governed by its terms, a choice-of-law provision, transition rules, or another state's law.
What UTC adoption does and does not tell you
UTC adoption normally means a jurisdiction began with a common statutory vocabulary for issues such as creation, revocability, trustee duties, beneficiary information, modification, creditor claims, and remedies. It does not mean those rules now match word for word. A state can omit a model provision, make it mandatory or default, use a different deadline, add a transition rule, or place related rules in another chapter.
For that reason, use the table to identify the relevant framework, then open the linked state guide and current statute before acting. In a multi-state trust, the law named in the instrument and the place of administration can matter more than a trustee's or beneficiary's current residence.
Frequently asked questions
Does every UTC jurisdiction use the same trustee deadlines?
No. The model act gives a common structure, but enactments can use different notice, accounting, contest, and breach-claim deadlines. The state-guide links above are the right next step for the jurisdiction involved.
Why can an adoption year differ from the effective date?
A legislature can pass a bill in one year and make it effective later. The table preserves the ULC record's enactment year and bill identifier; Hawaii, Connecticut, and Illinois are examples where readers should also check the statute's effective-date and transition provisions.
Does a state missing from the table have no trust law?
No. A jurisdiction may use an independent trust code or a UTC-influenced framework without a formal UTC enactment shown in the ULC record. Read the applicable state trust-law guide and current code instead of assuming that a missing state has no rules.
When to talk to an attorney
Talk with a qualified trust attorney before changing a trust, moving its administration, relying on a limitations period, or treating a state-law feature as available to an existing trust. The statute, the trust's terms, transition provisions, property, and the facts of the administration all matter.
This guide is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Consult a qualified attorney or tax professional for decisions about your trust.