In 1992, Ann Mark created two irrevocable trusts for the benefit of her three children. In 1997, Jared Scharf became the successor trustee for the trusts, and used some of those assets to form a separate trust for each of Ms. Mark’s three children. Each of the trusts stated that they were governed by New York law.
In 2010, the trustee invested funds from those trusts into a hedge fund in which his son was a principal. In 2011, after the hedge fund generated a return, the trustee advised Ms. Mark and her children that he intended to increase the investment in the hedge fund, and advised them in writing that his son was a principal. Thereafter, the hedge fund suffered substantial losses. In 2013, Ms. Mark and her children demanded that the trustee withdraw the investments from the hedge fund. The trustee refused, and Ms. Mark and her children filed a lawsuit seeking his removal as trustee, and seeking reimbursement for the losses that resulted from his investments.
Although the overall value of the trusts increased significantly, the investments in the hedge fund resulted in losses.
Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the trustee’s summary judgment motion, finding that the trust instruments permitted the trustee to make the investment in issue because it authorized him “to hold and retain all property received from any source without regard to … the trustee’s personal interest in such property….”
On appeal, the Superior Court, Appellate Division disagreed. Applying New York law, it reversed the order granting summary judgment in favor of the trustee, and granted partial summary judgment to Ms. Mark and her children. The Appellate Division found that the trustee’s investment in the hedge fund constituted a conflict of interest. It explained that the motion judge had mistakenly interpreted the trust language: although the trust insulated the trustee from inaction regarding trust property, it did not do so with respect to investments of trust property. Thus, although the trust protected the trustee when he took no action with respect to trust property, it did not protect the trustee from liability for making investments that breached his duty of undivided loyalty to the beneficiaries: “[the trustee] violated his fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries because this investment created a conflict of interest that resulted in a financial loss to the trusts.”
Although the trustee argued that the hedge fund investment represented only a negligible portion of the trust assets, the appellate court noted that this argument related to damages, not to liability. The appellate court reversed the motion judge’s decision, and granted partial summary judgment as to liability against the trustee.
A copy of In the Matter of the May 1, 1992 Mark Family Trust can be found here – In the Matter of the May 1, 1992 Mark Family Trust
For additional information concerning probate litigation and will contests, visit: https://vanarellilaw.com/will-contests-probate-litigation-elder-abuse-actions/#iplwc
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media