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

11. Blankenship v. Washington Trust Bank, 281 P.3d 1070 (Idaho 2012).
Sibling of a beneficiary of a trust did not have standing to bring a
cause of action against the trustee. Decedent’s trust agreement provided
that the trust estate was to be divided into four separate trusts for the
benefit of each of decedent’s four children. The separate trusts were to
terminate when the child attained the age of 60. One child brought an
action against the trustee for the trustee’s management of the trust of her
brother, claiming that the trustee breached its fiduciary duty to her. The
Court held that because each trust is a separate and distinct trust, the
siblings do not have standing to bring an action against the trustee for its
management of a sibling’s trust.
12. In re Peierls Charitable Lead Unitrust, 59 A.3d 464 (Del. Ch. 2012).
Court would not reform a trust when request was made for
convenience and the Court will not issue advisory opinions when
trustees’ actions are authorized in trust agreement. Trustees wished to
reform the trust to make it a directed trustee. Trustees petitioned the Court
requested approval for their resignation and for designating the situs of the
trust as Delaware and for approval of the reformation. The Court held that
a petition for judicial relief is not appropriate when expressly authorized in
the trust agreement. The trust expressly authorizes trustees to resign as
well as to designate the situs. The Court also held that a court will reform
a trust when necessary to conform to the intent of the settlor; however, the
petition at issue is requesting reformation for convenience, and the Court
will not reform the trust for such purpose.
J. Statute of Limitations
1. Hemphill v. Shore, 289 P.3d 1173 (Kan. 2012). Statute of limitations
was tolled until discovery of claim because trust’s existence was not
disclosed to beneficiary or beneficiary’s guardian, which amounted to
constructive fraud. Beneficiary was a minor when the trust was
established and neither the beneficiary nor his guardian was notified of the
trust’s existence. The Court found the failure to disclose the trust
amounted to constructive fraud, warranting tolling of statute of limitations
until discovery.
K. Resulting and Constructive Trust as Remedy
1. Elter-Nodvin v. Nodvin, 48 A.3d 908 (N.H. 2012). The change of
beneficiaries on life insurance policies and retirement accounts by a
father from the mother to their children during divorce proceedings
did not violate an anti-hypothecation order instructing the couple to
refrain from disposing of marital property while the proceedings were
pending. A husband filed for divorce from his wife. The family court
issued an anti-hypothecation order, which restrained the parties “from
selling, transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing or in any
56