Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

five children, including daughter. The provisions of the trust agreement
provided that, in order to inherit their share, a beneficiary must survive
distribution of assets (or that beneficiary’s share would be distributed
among the surviving beneficiaries). The decedent later executed two
amendments that removed daughter as a beneficiary. The decedent died in
February 2007. The trustee did not distribute immediately because an
accountant advised him to delay distributions until the IRS issued a
closing document on the estate. Daughter challenged the trust amendment
that disinherited her. However, daughter died before resolution of the
contest and before any trust distributions were made. The special
administrator of her estate argued that the trustee delayed making
distributions. The court held that the law does not require a trustee to
proceed “as quickly as possible,” but rather it requires the trustee to
proceed without “unreasonable delay.”
4. In the Matter of DelGatto, 950 N.Y.S.2d 7381 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).
Petitioner’s failed to establish evidence that undue influence was
present because petitioner did not establish that decedent lacked
mental competence. The decedent executed a trust agreement whereby
she left everything to her neighbor, which resulted in various nephews and
grandnieces and grandnephews receiving nothing. The Court held that
where there is a confidential relationship between the beneficiary and the
grantor, there is a presumption of undue influence. Decedent’s frequent
contact with her neighbor and lack thereof with her extended family
explains decedent’s decision.
5. In the Matter of Estate of Donaldson, 956 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. App.
Div. 2012). Decedent did not have the mental capacity to execute trust
agreement, which was proven by a letter from her doctor. The
decedent executed a trust agreement 61 days prior to her death, which was
coordinated by one of her daughters. The Court held that a trust
agreement could not be void by reason of fraud or undue influence upon a
motion for summary judgment. However, relying on the doctor’s letter
which stated that he did not think the decedent would be able to read and
understand a contract, the Court held that the decedent did not have mental
capacity to execute the trust documents.
F. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
1. Campell v. Chitty, III, No. 1D12-0861, 2012 WL 6031283 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. Dec. 5, 2012). No damages could be awarded for the trustee’s
breach of fiduciary duties except upon a finding of negligence. An
action was brought involving the administration of three trusts. The trial
court ordered the liquidation of trust assets and imposed monetary
sanctions against the trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. However, one of
the trust agreements contained an indemnification clause that held the
trustee harmless from any damages or liabilities so long as its actions were
46