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

settlor’s death in 2005, the trust’s interest in the company was essentially
worthless. Four of the settlor’s children sued son as trustee for breach of
fiduciary duties for certain actions taken during the time that the settlor
was alive and the trust was revocable. The primary issue was whether the
four beneficiaries had standing to sue son for alleged breach of fiduciary
duties that occurred while the settlor was alive and the trust was revocable.
The California Supreme Court held that the four contingent beneficiaries
have standing to sue the trustee for his alleged breach of fiduciary duties
owing to the settlor during the settlor’s lifetime, even though the settlor’s
wife, who was the current trust beneficiary, was still living. In its holding,
the court broadened the ability of beneficiaries to sue trustees for breach of
fiduciary duties with respect to a revocable trust.
2. Estate of Stewart, 286 P.3d 1089 (Ariz. 2012). The son of a decedent
had standing to contest the no contest clauses contained in his father’s
will and trust agreement, and it was not necessary for the trust
beneficiaries to seek to enforce such clauses to make their validity ripe
for adjudication. The decedent died in an accident with his wife and
their minor child. The decedent was survived by 5 adult children. Three
years before his death, the decedent executed a will and trust agreement,
both of which intentionally omitted one of the decedent’s sons and
contained no contest clauses. The omitted son filed a petition for formal
testacy seeking to invalidate the will. On appeal, the court held that the
omitted son had standing to contest the no contest clauses, even though he
was not a beneficiary of the will or trust. The court further held that it was
not necessary for the trust beneficiaries to seek to enforce the no contest
clauses to make their validity ripe for adjudication.
3. Arnott v. Arnott, 972 N.E.2d 586 (Ohio 2012). De novo standard of
review is the proper standard for appellate review of purely legal
questions. This matter arose out of a controversy over the trust
provisions. The language at issue established the calculation of the price
of trust property offered for sale to certain trust beneficiaries. One of the
trust beneficiaries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking
interpretation of the disputed provision. The trial court concluded that the
disputed phrase was unambiguous and that the option price was the fair
market value as determined by the appraisal. The court of appeals
reversed after reviewing the trust document de novo, finding that the
option language was susceptible to more than one interpretation and that
the option price was the federal and/or Ohio qualified-use value. At issue
on appeal was what standard of review an appellate court should employ
in reviewing legal issues in a declaratory judgment action. The Ohio
Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the de novo standard of review is
the proper standard for appellate review of purely legal issues.
4. Beekhuis v. Morris, 89 So.3d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012). The
probate court should not have asserted jurisdiction over the trust
53