uniform trust code - Kansas Judicial Branch
uniform trust code - Kansas Judicial Branch
uniform trust code - Kansas Judicial Branch
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
29<br />
30<br />
31<br />
32<br />
33<br />
34<br />
35<br />
that were not properly incurred in the administration of the <strong>trust</strong>.<br />
(b) An advance by the <strong>trust</strong>ee of money for the protection of the <strong>trust</strong> gives rise to<br />
a lien against <strong>trust</strong> property to secure reimbursement with reasonable interest.<br />
<strong>Kansas</strong> Comment<br />
Subsection (a)(1) conforms to <strong>Kansas</strong> law. See K.S.A. 59-1717 (<strong>trust</strong>ee shall be<br />
allowed his or her necessary expenses incurred in the execution of the <strong>trust</strong>); Morrison v. Watkins,<br />
20 Kan. App. 2d 411, Syl. 12, 889 P.2d 140 (1995) (award of costs is mandatory, conditioned upon<br />
good faith of <strong>trust</strong>ee).<br />
Subsection (a)(2) is new. The <strong>Kansas</strong> Court of Appeals has held that a <strong>trust</strong>ee may<br />
recover expenses incurred in successfully defending actions taken while <strong>trust</strong>ee although he is no<br />
longer a <strong>trust</strong>ee when the expenses are incurred. Morrison, 20 Kan. App. 2d 411, Syl. 11. See also<br />
Jennings v. Murdock, 220 Kan. 182, Syl. 16, 553 P.2d 846 (1976) (<strong>trust</strong>ee who successfully defends<br />
itself against efforts to remove it is entitled to be reimbursed from the <strong>trust</strong> estate for the expenses<br />
of making its defense).<br />
Subsection (b) is codified in K.S.A. 58-1203(c)(18).<br />
UTC Comment<br />
A <strong>trust</strong>ee has the authority to expend <strong>trust</strong> funds as necessary in the administration of the<br />
<strong>trust</strong>, including expenses incurred in the hiring of agents. See Sections 807 (delegation by <strong>trust</strong>ee)<br />
and 816(15) (<strong>trust</strong>ee to pay expenses of administration from <strong>trust</strong>).<br />
Subsection (a)(1) clarifies that a <strong>trust</strong>ee is entitled to reimbursement from the <strong>trust</strong> for<br />
incurring expenses within the <strong>trust</strong>ee’s authority. The <strong>trust</strong>ee may also withhold appropriate<br />
reimbursement for expenses before making distributions to the beneficiaries. See Restatement<br />
(Third) of Trusts § 38 cmt. b (Tentative Draft No. 2, approved 1999); Restatement (Second) of<br />
Trusts § 244 cmt. b (1959). A <strong>trust</strong>ee is ordinarily not entitled to reimbursement for incurring<br />
unauthorized expenses. Such expenses are normally the personal responsibility of the <strong>trust</strong>ee.<br />
As provided in subsection (a)(2), a <strong>trust</strong>ee is entitled to reimbursement for unauthorized<br />
expenses only if the unauthorized expenditures benefitted the <strong>trust</strong> The purpose of this provision,<br />
which is derived from Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 245 (1959), is not to ratify the unauthorized<br />
conduct of the <strong>trust</strong>ee, but to prevent unjust enrichment of the <strong>trust</strong>. Given this purpose, a court, on<br />
appropriate grounds, may delay or even deny reimbursement for expenses which benefitted the <strong>trust</strong>.<br />
Appropriate grounds include: (1) whether the <strong>trust</strong>ee acted in bad faith in incurring the expense; (2)<br />
whether the <strong>trust</strong>ee knew that the expense was inappropriate; (3) whether the <strong>trust</strong>ee reasonably<br />
believed the expense was necessary for the preservation of the <strong>trust</strong> estate; (4) whether the expense<br />
has resulted in a benefit; and (5) whether indemnity can be allowed without defeating or impairing<br />
131