Trs. of the Corcoran Gallery v. District of Columbia, 2014 D.C. Super LEXIS 17, at *35-36 & n.13 (D.C. Sup. Ct. 2014). A court may find compliance with a trust's terms has become impracticable or wasteful even where it is not literally impossible. See id. at *47-48 (finding compliance with a trust's terms impracticable where the trustees had not demonstrated impossibility); In re Elizabeth J.K.L. Lucas Charitable Gift, 261 P.3d 800, 807 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that for cy pres to apply it is "sufficient that achieving the settlor's stated purpose would be impracticable or unreasonable to effectuate"). To demonstrate impracticability, a party must show that complying with the trust's current terms "would be unreasonably difficult, and that it is not viable or feasible."
Cf. In re Elizabeth J.K.L. Lucas Charitable Gift, 261 P.3d 800, 810 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) (finding presence of a “gift over” provision confirms that the “settlor only wished to dedicate the property to a specific purpose and, if that specific purpose failed, to not dedicate it to charity at all”). Therefore, the court may modify the provisions of the Agreement so long as compliance with the current provisions is unlawful, impossible, impracticable, or wasteful, and the proposed modifications are consistent with the purpose of educating others.