The Morris decision (or should I say decisions? There were at least 4 cases I've seen from that unfortunate not-so-blended family) is at least a good example of a BDBN being upheld despite the surviving trustee having acted contrary to it, albeit having done so after arming herself with some legal advice. It is also a good reminder that estate planning needs to involve all family members even when the relationships are strained and that trustee succession generally needs to be considered in the trust deed. In the Morris situation the deceased did not tell his then wife that he had executed a BDBN in favour of the children from his former marriage. Presumably he hoped it would all work out but that moment of weakness must have caused a lot of misery to the people he would have cared most about. The SCT is clearly a benefit to someone in a regulated fund other than a SMSF when they are not themselves the trustee, especially given that it's potentially completely free to use. For an SMSF I'm pretty confident that a well written deed with informed and capable and fairly-treated beneficiaries will mean, in my case at least, a rational outcome.