United States: Recent Cases Of Interest To Fiduciaries - August 27, 2015

Strange v. Towns et al., 769 S.E.2d 604 (Ct. App. GA, March 4, 2015)

A Georgia Court of Appeals determined that a settlor validly amended her living trust through the execution of a durable power of attorney during her lifetime

Facts: Pauline Strange created the Pauline Strange Inter Vivos Trust in 2001 naming herself as initial trustee. . In 2011, Pauline amended the trust to name her son Tony Strange and her nephew and sister (the "Towns") as successor co-trustees. In July 2012, Pauline executed a general durable financial power of attorney, which provided that Tony would be the executor of her estate and trust. While somewhat ambiguous, the power of attorney stated that the document was intended for Tony's sole benefit in the management of the trust of which he had full ownership. One month later, Pauline sent a letter to the estate planning attorney who prepared the 2011 amendment to her trust, advising him that her trust needed to be revised to appoint Tony as trustee of her trust and executor of her estate. The letter also mentioned that Pauline had executed a document to revise the trust in the event Pauline died before the trust was amended. Two months later, Pauline died before any formal amendments to the trust documents could be prepared by the estate planning attorney to whom she had directed the letter.

Tony filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that he was the sole trustee of Pauline's trust pursuant to the power of attorney. The trial court denied Tony's petition and found that Tony and the Towns were co-trustees of the trust.

Holding: On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that Tony was the sole trustee of the trust. The court found that under the terms of the trust, the document could be amended at any time by a "duly executed written instrument." The court found that Pauline's power of attorney showed Pauline's clear intent to name Tony as sole successor trustee.

The court also rejected the trial court's finding that the power of attorney was not properly notarized. The Towns' argument that the August 2012 letter showed that another trust amendment document was required to appoint Tony as sole trustee did not persuade the court. The court observed that the August 2012 letter also requested a change to Pauline's will to name Tony as sole executor. Such a letter confirmed that Pauline had previously changed the successor trustee designation in her power of attorney. The court found no further, more formal trust amendment was required to confirm that Tony was the sole successor trustee of Pauline's trust.

Practice Point: Amendments to estate planning documents can exist in strange places. For trustees, this case highlights the importance of a careful review of the decedent's estate planning documents to make sure that any will, codicils, trust amendments and ancillary trust administration documents are in the file and their impact understood. For drafting attorneys, this case underscores the importance of getting the draft estate planning documents out to the client for review, and then scheduling the documents' execution without delay.

In re: Eleanor Pierce (Marshall) Stevens Living Trust, 159 So. 3d 1101 (Ct. App. LA, February 18, 2015)

Court upholds an appointment of a trust protector as valid under Louisiana law

Facts: Eleanor Pierce Marshall Stevens created a living trust in 1979. In 2000, Finley Hilliard began serving as trustee. The trust was amended on several occasions, including the 2006 appointment of Preston Marshall as trust protector. A 2007 amendment to the trust gave the trust protector the power to remove the trustee and appoint a successor trustee.

In 2009, the trustee resigned as trustee of the trust, conditioned upon the appointment and acceptance of a successor trustee. One week later, the trustee, still acting on behalf of the trust as trustee, filed a trust modification action with the court to amend the successor trustee provisions of the trust to provide that upon a vacancy in the office of the trustee, that the trust protector would become a co-trustee of the trust and be required to name a co-trustee of the trust. The modification also sought confirmation that the trustee was authorized to resign as trustee of the trust. The court granted an order allowing the requested modification to the trust's trustee succession provisions.

In 2010, the IRS sought payment from the trustee for unpaid gift taxes attributable to indirect gifts Stevens received from her ex-husband. The government asserted that the trustee violated the federal priority statute when the trustee took actions in the administration of the trust to pay trust expenses and make charitable distributions before paying the gift taxes. In separate federal litigation, the trustee, along with a co-defendant estate executor, were held personally liable for the gift taxes under the federal priority statute.

In this case, the trustee sought to undo his 2009 conditional resignation as trustee under the theory that the resignation was never effective because the trust protector never accepted the office of co-trustee or acted to name another co-trustee of the trust. The trustee also sought indemnification from the trust to pay attorneys' fees and bond premiums.

The trust protector contacted the IRS seeking a determination of whether the IRS would regard distributions from the trust to pay attorneys' fees and bond premiums as a further violation of the federal priority statute. To no one's surprise, the IRS confirmed it would deem such distributions a further violation of the statute.

The trial court subsequently entered an order finding that effective in 2013, the trustee had both effectively resigned and been removed as co-trustee of the trust by the trust protector. The court viewed this removal as consistent with the authority granted to the trust protector through the 2007 trust amendment. The trustee appealed.

Holding: On appeal, the trustee argued that trust protectors are invalid under Louisiana law. The trustee sought a declaration that the trust protector could not accept the trustee's 2009 resignation four years later because too much time had passed and the trustee had withdrawn his resignation. The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected the trustee's arguments.

The court found no provision under Louisiana law that forbade or was inconsistent with the appointment of a trust protector. Therefore, the appointment of the trust protector was valid and not against public policy. In fact, the court observed that the trust protector's contact with the IRS regarding a possible further violation of the federal priority statute potentially protected the trust from further liability and an additional lawsuit, had additional distributions been made from the trust.

The court affirmed the trial court's order recognizing the trust protector's authority to remove the trustee. Because the court concluded that the trust protector had the authority to remove the trustee, the court determined that the issue of whether the trust protector could accept the trustee's 2009 resignation in 2013 was moot.

Practice Point: This is yet another recent case in which a court has upheld the validity of both the existence and actions of a trust protector. So long as the trust protector is acting within the scope of the authority given to the trust protector in the trust instrument, the trust protector's actions should be valid.

Colbert v. Kraek, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 242 (March 30, 2015)

Court gives effect to unambiguous trust funding formula

Facts: In 2008, Donald Colbert created a revocable trust agreement that provided, upon his death, the trust assets would be divided between a marital trust for the benefit of his wife, Barbro, and a credit shelter trust for the benefit of his daughter, Katherine. The marital trust was to be funded with the "minimum value [necessary] to reduce the federal estate tax to the lowest possible amount." The remaining trust assets would fund the credit shelter trust.

Mr. Colbert died in 2013 with an available estate tax applicable exclusion amount in excess of $5 million. The trust assets had a value of roughly $2 million. A suit followed to determine the proper funding of the trusts.

Based on the plain language of the funding formula in the trust agreement, the trial court ruled that the "minimum value" needed to minimize the estate tax was zero. Thus, no funding of the marital trust was required. Barbro appealed.

Law: When interpreting a trust instrument, the court must give effect to the testator's intent as set forth in the four corners of the trust instrument. A court may not, and need not, interpret unambiguous terms of a trust instrument.

Holding: The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's ruling, determining that the trust instrument unambiguously stated that the marital trust would be funded only as necessary to reduce the federal estate tax due. Because the credit shelter trust was to be funded with assets valued at less than Mr. Colbert's available federal estate tax applicable exclusion amount such that no federal estate tax would be due at Mr. Colbert's death, no funding of the marital trust was required.

Practice Point: The federal estate tax applicable exclusion amount has increased dramatically over the past decade. Practitioners should revisit tax-driven trust funding formulas to confirm they still meet the needs and wishes of the client in light of the changes in the tax law.

In re Johnson, 46 Misc.3d 1213(A) (N.Y. Surr., Broome Cnty, January 12, 2015)

When last will and testament favored daughter who served as agent under power of attorney and managed testator's finances, summary judgment was not appropriate, and claims of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence were allowed to proceed to the jury

Facts: Ruth Mae Johnson died on September 10, 2012. Prior to Ruth's death, Ruth's daughter Marjorie was her primary caregiver. Ruth lived with Marjorie and Marjorie managed Ruth's finances as agent under a power of attorney. Before her death, Ruth executed a new will that favored Marjorie and named Marjorie as executor. Upon her death, Marjorie offered the will for probate. Ruth's other children objected, asserting lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence by Marjorie, and other claims. Following certain discovery, Marjorie moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against her.

Law: Under New York law, proper execution of a will establishes a prima facie case for capacity and a lack of undue influence. The burden then shifts to those who object to the will. To have testamentary capacity, a testator need only have a general awareness of the nature and extent of her assets. Undue influence requires evidence of a substantial nature that shows motive, opportunity, and specific acts of undue influence. However, a confidential relationship gives rise to an inference of undue influence, which shifts the burden back to the proponent of the will.

Holding: The New York Surrogates Court denied summary judgment on the issues of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. As for testamentary capacity, the court found that the attorney preparing the will had not explored Ruth's full asset picture with her, and accordingly it was not clear whether she had even a general awareness of the nature and extent of her assets. With respect to the undue influence allegations, relying on factually similar case precedent, the court held that a jury should decide whether undue influence existed.

Practice Point: Practitioners must exercise additional caution in preparing a will that leaves property to an agent under a power of attorney or another individual, even a family member, who handles the testator's finances. The practitioner should be sure to explore the relevant facts with the testator and to make sufficient notes of these interactions with the client. Failure to serve as independent counsel not only risks that the will might be overturned, but also subjects the estate to litigation that can be resolved only through a trial or settlement.

To read this report in full, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Holland & Knight
Archer & Greiner P.C.
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Holland & Knight
Archer & Greiner P.C.
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions