In 2023, following passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent developments and controversies nationwide to better inform you about this important topic. The Donor Intent Protection Act has now passed in Kentucky, Georgia and Montana, and efforts on behalf of this legislation will continue in additional states in 2026.
We encourage donors to contact us with any questions about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent we may have missed.
This month’s Donor Intent Watch focuses first on a current dispute between a successor donor-advisor and the sponsoring organization where that donor-advisor’s late father had opened a DAF currently worth over $21 million. This is followed with a piece about donor intent and the decision to sunset at the small but mighty Apgar Foundation.
We continue to acknowledge the success of the Daniels Fund of Denver Colorado, which completed its 25th year of grantmaking to Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming at the end of 2025. We applaud its ongoing commitment to the philanthropic intent of its late donor, Bill Daniels, and encourage others to consider its example by visiting https://danielsfund.org/about/about-bill-daniels/.
Donor-Advised Funds and Donor Intent
When discussing the use of DAFs in philanthropy in the Donor Intent Watch of July 30, 2025, I said, “Protecting your donor intent with a donor-advised fund requires you be mindful of the policies of the sponsoring organization. Because contributions to DAFs are irrevocable, it is critical to understand the sponsoring organization is the legal owner of the funds in your account, and you merely ‘advise’ on their use. Donor recommendations are typically accepted, but there have been exceptions.”
I also said, “The succession policies of sponsoring organizations vary significantly, so pay attention to their rules and make decisions that uphold your philanthropic mission.”
We now have a lawsuit in play which will test “whether a donor’s or successor advisor’s advisory privileges—though nonbinding—constitute a legal interest that must be honored in good faith by the sponsoring organization.” The plaintiff is Philip Peterson, son of the late Gordon and Ruth Peterson and now the sole donor-advisor of the Peterson Family Stewardship Fund. Established in 2006 by Gordon Peterson, the fund now holds over $21 million. The defendant is the DAF’s sponsoring organization, Christian Community Foundation d/b/a WaterStone.
According to an analysis of the lawsuit by attorney Richard L. Fox, Gordon Peterson took great care to establish and explain his intent when he established the Peterson Family Stewardship Fund in 2005. He “identified specific doctrinal objectives, including scriptural translation, evangelistic missions, media outreach and Christian education. A prioritized ‘preapproved charitable recipient list’ was incorporated at inception, reinforcing donor intent and describing the Fund as an instrument for advancing evangelical mission work.” For 15 years, his son’s lawsuit claims, WaterStone approved grant recommendations and managed the fund well. In 2024, however, that came to an end. Hence the current lawsuit.
Starting with the basic question of legal standing, this case has the potential to alter significantly the relationship between donor-advisors and sponsoring organizations. At present, sponsoring organizations typically honor donor recommendations because they recognize the benefits in doing so. What value would donors see in DAFs if their recommendations were regularly refused? What impact would those donors’ complaints have on other donor-advisors or individuals considering opening a DAF? For financial reasons alone, it benefits sponsoring organizations to honor the wishes of donor-advisors most of the time.
But there are other forces to be considered. Most sponsoring organizations are genuinely interested in doing the right thing by their donor-advisors. Ideally, the sponsoring organizations make clear what sort of recommendations they will not approve, and prospective donor-advisors are aware of the limits. This is particularly true if a sponsoring organization is oriented around a specific set of values, whether religious, philosophical or ideological.
Examples of such mission-driven intermediaries include DonorsTrust, the Bradley Impact Fund, Jewish Federations of North America, the Knights of Columbus Charitable Fund, the National Christian Foundation and the defendant in this lawsuit – the Christian Community Foundation d/b/a WaterStone. Based in Colorado Springs, WaterStone is quite clear about its religious mission: “Honoring God through the transformational power of giving. Serving Givers at the intersection of faith and finance. Building the Kingdom by transforming assets into living water.”
It is not surprising to see how much attention this lawsuit is attracting. Donor-advised funds are already a contentious topic in philanthropy, and as Fox notes, this lawsuit questions “the practical advisory bargain that has sustained the DAF model in practice. … Whether and to what extent advisory privileges are legally protected has implications for DAF governance, sponsor discretion and donor expectations.”
Read more here for an analysis of the Peterson lawsuit and information on prior lawsuits involving donor-advised funds, published in the February 2026 newsletter of the National Association of Estate Planners & Councils.
Sunsetting at the Apgar Foundation
Last December, The Wall Street Journal published an article by John J. Miller announcing the decision of the Apgar Foundation’s trustees to sunset the foundation in the near future. Miller, a Free Expression columnist and director of the Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale College, is one of those trustees.
The decision, Miller said, followed the wishes of the foundation’s creator, the late Martha Apgar. Apgar, who died in 2020, had no desire for her foundation to exist in perpetuity and preferred it close within about five years after her death.
“She wanted her foundation to support ‘great books’ programs in higher education, plus several other causes, and then to deplete its resources,” Miller wrote.
Like other donors before her, Apgar sought to ensure her foundation would protect donor intent, and all of its current trustees knew her.
“We understood and supported her ideas and sought to honor them,” Miller said. “After she died, many of our conversations about grants revolved around what we thought Martha would have wanted.”
Among U.S. foundations, Apgar is a small institution, awarding grants totaling about $13 million since 2008. By keeping its mission sharply focused, however, it has been “a difference-maker for programs at Benedictine College, the University of Arizona and elsewhere.”
Concern about losing that focus was a key factor in the decision to sunset, Miller said.
“If the Apgar Foundation had opted for perpetuity, trustees who didn’t know her eventually would have taken over. This new generation might not have cared about her priorities. Her foundation would have become vulnerable to mission drift.”
The Apgar Foundation is not the first to express concern about the loss of donor intent over time. Miller cites the John M. Olin Foundation and the William E. Simon Foundation, and we can add to that list. The Earhart Foundation, the Avi Chai Foundation and the Marcus Foundation have all chosen to limit their lives rather than risk mission draft. Others have chosen to forgo perpetuity to get more money where it is needed more quickly.
Charles “Chuck” Feeney planned to do all his giving in his lifetime and shut down The Atlantic Philanthropies before his death.
“I see little reason to delay giving when so much good can be achieved through supporting worthwhile causes today. If I have $10 in my pocket, and I do something with it today, it’s already producing $10 worth of good,” Feeney said.
Bill Gates has announced the Gates Foundation will grant $200 billion and close by 2045.
Congratulations to the Apgar Foundation – a small but mighty foundation – and its trustees who kept faith with its donor’s wishes. And thanks to John Miller for telling its story.
Read more here.
