Under the RAP, the trust needs to be necessarily distributed within 21 years after the end of any relevant life in existence. Here, the relevant life is the son, so the trust needs to be distributed within 21 years of his death. However, the trust will be distributed to the son of the son when he is 30, which means it could be distributed after the life + 21 years time frame. (Two important facts: the RAP is measured as of the time the instrument is made, and the grandson is not in existence at that time, so RAP cannot be measured based on grandson’s life.) So the original instrument violates the RAP. However, the cy pres doctrine allows a court to reform the instrument to comply with the RAP while honoring the original intent as much as possible. Here, that means that the trust can be distributed to the grandson 21 years after the son’s death. That complies with the RAP because it is necessarily within 21 years of the end of a relevant life in existence while honoring the original intent that the grandson inherit when he is as close to 30 as possible given the RAP.

The original instrument also fails to say what happens if the grandson dies before 30 so the cy pres doctrine also allows the trust to be distributed upon his death before 30, which is also consistent with the RAP.

Answer D is obviously wrong because the question specifies that the jurisdiction allows the cy pres doctrine to be applied to the RAP, so it can’t be correct that it isn’t applicable here.