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

assets and the trustee, when the original pleadings never raised any
claim over the trust or its assets. Mother created a trust that provided
that she and her daughter would serve as cotrustees. Under the trust’s
terms, if two medical doctors opined that a trustee was legally disabled,
then that trustee would be deemed incapacitated and the other cotrustee
would assume the duties of the incapacitated trustee. Daughter,
individually and not in her capacity as cotrustee, filed a petition to
determine whether her mother was incapacitated and to appoint a
guardian. The petition made no reference to the trust. Son filed a counterpetition,
and, ultimately, the probate court entered an order naming son as
the guardian. Soon thereafter, son filed several motions in the
guardianship proceeding in which he sought to have daughter removed as
trustee of the trust and to compel her, as trustee, to relinquish trust assets.
Daughter made a limited appearance, only in her individual capacity,
arguing that the probate court lacked jurisdiction over her in her capacity
as trustee. The probate court entered an order granting son’s emergency
motion to appoint a court monitor and to enjoin daughter as trustee from
selling mother’s home. Daughter appealed. The appellate held that it was
error for the probate court to have asserted jurisdiction over the trust
property and daughter, in her capacity as trustee.
5. Regions Bank v. Kramer, 98 So.3d 510 (Ala. 2012). Beneficiaries of a
trust are not limited to common law claims against a trustee and may
maintain a claim against a trustee for violations of statute.
Beneficiaries of four separate trusts brought a cause of action against the
corporate trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the trustee’s
management of the assets. Among the complaints was that the trustee
violated the Alabama Securities Act. The Court held that, whether a claim
is created by common law or by statute, such claims may be brought
against a trustee.
6. Miami Children’s Hospital Foundation v. Hillman, 101 So.3d 861 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2012). Parole evidence is not admissible when there is no
ambiguity in the trust agreement. A claim was filed that another charity
was the proper recipient of a bequest. The named charity, however,
argued that there was no ambiguity in the trust document. The Court held
that when the terms of a trust instrument are clear and unambiguous, there
is no need for the Court to engage in a construction of such instrument and
the named charity is the proper beneficiary.
7. DiGaetano v. DiGaetano, 50 A.3d 10 (N.H. 2012). Trust beneficiaries
are not entitled to a jury trial when the matters at issue involve trust
construction. Husband and wife established a trust which held the family
home. After the death of the husband, wife amended the trust agreement
and named defendant as sole trustee and beneficiary. After wife’s death,
defendant sold the home and petitioned the court for a determination that
he was the rightful owner of the proceeds. Plaintiffs argued that they were
54