Your Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty

/in , ,

by Elizabeth Meck

The Fiduciary Law Blog recently posted an article in which we observed that “fiduciary” is a vague term encompassing many different people and several different relationships. Under Colorado law, a fiduciary includes, without limitation, a trustee of any trust, a personal representative, guardian, conservator, receiver, partner, agent, or “any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-1-103(2).

Any fiduciary must abide by the duties and obligations generally known as “fiduciary duties,” which are among the highest duties under the law. This post is the first in a short series in which we will discuss the fiduciary duties applied to trustees, when it may be appropriate for a trustee to delegate certain duties, and a trustee’s potential liability for breaching these important duties.

In the context of a trust, and as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 2, a fiduciary relationship with respect to property arises out of the manifestation of an intention to create the fiduciary relationship and subjects the trustee “to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person.”

The trustee’s most basic function is to hold title to and manage trust property pursuant to the terms of the trust instrument, which he must do with the utmost loyalty, good faith and honesty. Generally, the fiduciary duties applicable to a trustee are: the duty of loyalty, the duty to exercise care and skill in managing the trust assets and administering the trust, and the duty to remain impartial to all beneficiaries. This post will focus on the duty of loyalty.

The duty of loyalty, perhaps the broadest of the fiduciary duties, has been described as “inherent” in the trust relationship. George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 543 (2d rev. ed. 1980). This duty requires the trustee to remain loyal to the beneficiaries of the trust in all aspects of trust administration. Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 170.1 Fundamental to the duty of loyalty is the obligation to adhere to the terms of the trust instrument itself and to undertake all actions in accordance with applicable law. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 76; Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 169.

As defined in Scott on Trusts, the trustee’s fiduciary duty of loyalty is the “duty of a trustee to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries.” Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 170 (4th ed. 1987) (emphasis added). A trustee, therefore, “is not permitted to place himself in a position where it would be for his own benefit to violate his duty to the beneficiaries.” Id. Under the duty of loyalty, the trustee must refrain from engaging in any act of self-dealing or conflicts of interests that may result in increased benefit to himself. Such transactions would constitute a breach of the trustee’s duty of loyalty, may expose the trustee to personal liability, and may be voided by the beneficiaries. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 170 cmt. b.

Further, the duty of loyalty requires the trustee to “communicate to [all beneficiaries] all material facts” in connection with the administration of the trust. Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 170. Failure to inform beneficiaries of important decisions or material facts may not only constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty, but frequently creates feelings of distrust toward the trustee. It is important, therefore, for the trustee to remain transparent, which we discussed in a prior blog post.

The duty of loyalty applies to the administration of a non-charitable trust as well as charitable trusts. This is the case even though a charitable trust may exist perpetually. A trustee of a charitable trust must administer the trust solely in the interests of effectuating the trust’s charitable purposes. See Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 379 cm. a.

As stated above, the duty of loyalty is broad and requires the trustee to regularly ensure that he is acting solely in the best interest of the beneficiaries. It is wise for any trustee to step back occasionally to make sure that his actions as trustee are taken in accordance with the duty of loyalty.

In the next blog entry in this series, we will discuss the duty of the trustee to exercise care and skill in the management of trust assets and administration of the trust.

1For further discussion on the duty of loyalty, see Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts §§ 169-186 (4th ed. 1987); and George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 543-543(V) (rev. 2d rev. ed. replacement vol. 1993).

Robin Williams Got It Right

/in , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

The popular press is always full of cautionary tales about celebrities and their estate plans (see our previous post on Philip Seymour Hoffman).  These stories make it seem that more celebrities get estate planning wrong then get it right.  However, it appears that Robin Williams did take several steps to get his estate plan right before his untimely death. 

Williams created a revocable living trust.  Since trust documents are not part of the public record like a will, we may never know who Williams gave his assets to and how those assets will be handled (in a trust, outright gifts, etc.).  The living trust will help protect Williams’ legacy and his family’s privacy (assuming there is no litigation or disclosure by those with knowledge of the plan).

In addition, living trusts help to avoid probate if they are properly funded.  In California, where Williams lived, the probate process can be expensive due to fees for the attorney and executor that are based on the value of the assets going through probate in addition to appraisal fees and court costs.  If Williams transferred all of his personal assets to the living trust prior to his death, he will have helped to avoid these expenses.

Williams also appears to have created a trust to hold his real estate in California (estimated equity of $25 million) and another trust to benefit his children (value unknown).  While it is not known whether Williams created these trusts to help reduce his estate tax costs, it is possible that he did so.  This uncertainty is because the terms of these trusts remain private.

I hope that Williams’ family benefits from his planning and foresight and that other celebrities take notice.

Should an undue influencer be responsible for paying the legal fees incurred to rectify the undue influence?

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

In a recent unpublished decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that a niece who unduly influenced her uncle was not responsible for the payment of the uncle's legal fees, which were required to rectify the undue influence and return the property to the uncle.

Specifically, the niece was accused of unduly influencing her uncle to give her pieces of real estate during his life. A jury found that the niece did unduly influence her uncle and that she breached her fiduciary duty to her uncle. As a result, the court ordered that the real estate be transferred back to the uncle. In addition, the jury awarded $315,000 in legal fees against the niece to make the uncle whole.

On appeal, the niece argued that she should not be responsible for the payment of attorney's fees because Colorado follows the American rule that parties in a dispute must pay their own legal fees. The uncle, through his conservator, argued that an award of legal fees was appropriate in this case under the breach of fiduciary duty/trust exception to the American rule. This exception was first recognized by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 1982. See Heller v. First Nat'l Bank of Denver, 657 P.2d 992 (Colo. App. 1982). The Colorado Supreme Court recognized the exception in 1989. See Buder v. Satore, 774 P.2d 1383 (Colo. 1989).

Despite the recognition of this exception, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that the Colorado Supreme Court has cautioned it against liberally construing any of the exceptions to the American rule.

In finding that the exception did not apply to this case of undue influence, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the niece's breach of fiduciary duty did not closely resemble a breach of trust. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the niece breached her duty as an individual, rather than any fiduciary duty to manage property, and that abusing personal influence is not similar to mismanaging property as a fiduciary.

The citation for the case is: In the Interest of Phillip Delluomo, Protected Person, 2012CA2513.

Letters of Wishes: Helpful or Hurtful?

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper and Desta Asfaw

Most of the trusts we see instruct the trustee to consider making distributions for “health, education, maintenance and support.”  While the typical HEMS standard provides certainty in regard to taxes, it does not provide the trustee with any insight into what types of distributions the settlor wanted the beneficiaries to receive from the trust.  In addition, many trusts give the trustee broad discretion in regard to distributions (through the use of the words, “sole” or “absolute”), which puts even more pressure on the trustee to figure out if the settlor would have agreed to make distributions.  Typically, a trustee has little to no guidance from the settlor about his or her desires for the beneficiaries or his or her purposes in creating the trust (other than tax deferral or avoidance).

One solution to this problem is for the settlor of the trust to send to the trustee a non-binding letter of wishes.  Letters of wishes include personal information about the settlor and the beneficiaries, their relationships, the beneficiaries’ abilities and limitations and the settlor’s specific concerns or desires regarding each beneficiary.  Letters of wishes give the trustee more insight into the state of mind of the settlor when exercising discretion, which is helpful when exercising discretion in regard to distributions.

While letters of wishes are generally recognized in the estate planning community, there is very little law regarding the effect of a letter of wishes on a trustee’s discretion, whether reliance on a letter of wishes provides any liability protection to a trustee or if a letter of wishes must be disclosed to the beneficiaries.  If a settlor provides opinions and concerns about the beneficiaries in a letter of wishes that may be hurtful to the beneficiaries, the trustee will then be faced with the difficult decision – do you provide a copy of the letter of wishes to the beneficiaries?  If a claim for breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duty should arise, it may be that the trustee is left with no choice but to make the letter available to the beneficiaries.  In Colorado, there is no case law regarding letters of wishes so it is unknown if the letters of wishes must be disclosed to beneficiaries under C.R.S. § 15-16-303 or whether a trustee can rely on a letter of wishes when making a distribution decision.

Even with the uncertainty relating to the disclosure and use of letters of wishes, any peek into the settlor’s mind and his or her intent regarding distributions will be helpful to a trustee.  If a letter of wishes is admitted into evidence during a dispute, the letter could also prove to be compelling evidence for a judge reviewing a trustee’s exercise of discretion.

Probate and Trust Issues in Colorado’s Upcoming Legislative Session

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Colorado’s General Assembly will reconvene on January 8, 2014.  At this time, it appears that at least two probate and trust related issues will be the subject of debate by the Assembly.

The first is a proposed change to the Colorado Civil Unions Act that would permit partners to a civil union to file joint income tax returns if they are permitted to do so by federal law.  Under the current proposal being considered by the Colorado Bar Association, there would be changes to both the Civil Unions Act and Colorado’s income tax statutes.  This is partly in response to the issuance of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 by the Internal Revenue Service, which permits married same sex couples to file joint federal income tax returns. 

The second is a proposal to codify a testamentary exception to Colorado’s attorney-client privilege.  The necessity and proposed scope of the testamentary exception are currently being discussed by a subcommittee of the Statutory Revisions Committee of the Trust & Estate Section of the Colorado Bar Association and will likely be discussed later this week at Super Thursday meetings.

The Colorado Supreme Court has previously recognized that the attorney-client privilege generally survives the death of the client to further one of the policies of the attorney-client privilege – to encourage clients to communicate fully and frankly with counsel.  The Colorado Supreme Court has also held that a “testamentary exception” to the privilege exists, which permits an attorney to reveal certain types of communications when there is dispute among the heirs, devisees or other parties who claim by succession from a decedent so that the intent of the decedent can be upheld.

Charities are Beneficiaries Too!

/in , , , , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

“No, you cannot have it.  The trust is a private document” – Well, maybe, but not to the exclusion of the beneficiaries, and I mean ALL of the beneficiaries, named in that testamentary instrument.

Prior to returning to Colorado a few months ago, I worked in the Legal Department for a national charity where the responsibility of my team (totaling more than 8 attorneys, paralegals and staff) was to represent the charity’s interests in trust and estate matters around the country.

Coming from a background as a trusts and estates paralegal for well-respected law firms, I was absolutely shocked at the number of times that attorneys or fiduciaries (both professional and individual) would respond in the negative to a request for a copy of the will or trust or financial information regarding the gift of which we had just received notice.  There seemed to be this prevailing attitude that, because we were a non-profit organization, we would simply take whatever we were given or what was left over and be grateful for it, even in large trusts or estates where the designated gift was a portion or entirety of the residuary estate.  Unfortunately there was not a consistent understanding that if Charity XYZ and Cousin Sue are each to receive one-half of the residuary estate, they need to be treated equally.

Most charities do not intend to be adversarial or difficult.  Any money spent on legal fees reduces the ultimate charitable gift of the donor; however, they have a fiduciary obligation to the ultimate beneficiaries of their particular mission to ensure they receive everything to which they are ENTITLED!  In Colorado, that means a copy of the terms of the trust which affect the interest; other jurisdictions require a complete copy of the instrument, including codicils and/or amendments.  Almost every jurisdiction requires providing at least some information about the assets or accountings.

As with many things in life, upfront communication is usually the best policy.  My experience working for a “professional beneficiary” has reinforced and taught me several things about good estate and trust administration communications.  Provide an initial notification as soon as possible at the beginning of the trust or estate administration.  Provide periodic updates.  If there are assets that may take some time to sell, litigation or any other factors that may delay the distribution, let your contact know and they will calendar their system accordingly.  I know that I was less likely to question or challenge things when I received regular contact from the attorney or fiduciary.

So if the Decedent has been deceased for several years and you are just now sending a check for several hundreds of thousands of dollars as their first notification of the gift under a will or trust, do not be surprised if the charity requests additional information (including, but not limited to, the testamentary documents, an inventory or list of assets and an accounting) before signing a waiver or release.  After all, charities are beneficiaries too!

Description or Condition?

/in , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Lawyers that regularly litigate in the probate world always have an improbable story to tell.  Here is one of those stories that ended up in front of the North Dakota Supreme Court last year: 

A couple, Lee and Robyn, were engaged and planned to be married on July 18, 2009.  On June 26, 2009, Lee and Robyn signed a prenuptial agreement that required Lee to make gifts to Robyn and her daughter upon his death. 

Also on June 26, 2009, Lee executed a Will that contained the provisions to comply with the requirements of the prenuptial agreement.  The Will gave property to Robyn, describing her as “my wife, Robyn.”  The Will also stated, “My spouse’s name is Robyn Risovi and all references in this Will to “my spouse” are to her only.”  However, a footnote followed stating, “This Will has been prepared in anticipation of the upcoming marriage of …Lee Paulson and Robyn Risovi set for July 18, 2009.” 

Lee died on July 15, 2009 – three days before the wedding. 

Before you read any further, answer this question: should Robyn receive the gifts under the Will even though she was not yet Lee’s wife?

Technically, one of the questions before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether the term “wife” being used to describe Robyn in the Will resulted in a conditional gift or whether the term “wife” was a merely a description.  In addition, the North Dakota Supreme Court had to determine whether the prenuptial agreement, which was not effective since the marriage did not occur before Lee’s death, had any impact on the interpretation of the word “wife” in the Will. 

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the Will was unambiguous, the term “wife” was only descriptive, and ordered distribution to Robyn.  The Court held the prenuptial agreement had no effect on the interpretation of the Will for a variety of reasons.

This is just one more example of the ways that the best laid plans are derailed by unexpected events.

Dangers in Charitable Giving – Colorado’s Attorney General Takes Action Against Charities

/in , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Normally, when the topic of charitable giving comes up with a client, the discussion is a positive one.  The client is excited about the great work being done by a charity, wants to ensure that their charitable work is continued after their death or has a desire to create a legacy.  However, when representing clients that are fiduciaries who are making distributions for charitable purposes, a danger lurks – donating money to a corrupt or fake charity.

This danger was brought to the forefront last week in Colorado when Attorney General John Suthers filed suit against Boobies Rock! Inc., the Se7ven Group, Say No 2 Cancer and owner Adam Cole Shryock.  In the lawsuit, the Attorney General has claimed that these charities deceived consumers into thinking they were donating money to a cancer-related charity when consumers were actually giving money to a for-profit business that provided only small amounts to charity.  Allegedly, the charities would hire models to take donations on behalf of Boobies Rock! at various venues and events and tell people that their donations would go to other charities fighting breast cancer.  The Complaint filed by the Attorney General also alleges that these charities used the names of other legitimate charities in its fundraising efforts without their consent and that Mr. Shryock used a portion of the funds collected to pay for an online dating service, buy a BMW, pay for his cleaning service, and pay his bar tabs.

This is a harsh example, but is a good reminder to counsel clients to thoroughly investigate any charity they wish to give to and any charitable solicitation they receive.  To read the Complaint filed by the Attorney General, click here.

Trying to Do the Right Thing – Ethics and Estate Planning

/in , , ,

by: Kelly Cooper

Many readers of this blog are familiar with (or even attended) the CBA’s Trust and Estate Section’s Estate Planning Retreat two weeks ago in Snowmass Village.  As always, the Retreat was a great time to reconnect or catch up with our colleagues who work in the estate planning and administration areas and attorneys who do estate planning, administration and litigation.  More importantly, each year the Retreat presents an opportunity for attorneys from all over the state to discuss issues and exchange ideas with each other in small groups.  This year, Jean Stewart and I hosted one of those small discussion groups.  Our discussion group focused on ethics and the conflict and confidentiality issues that arise during the course of representing a family – from the initial representation of a couple for estate planning, to representing the family business, pre-nuptial agreements for the couple’s children, divorces, the differing treatment of children (Greedy, Needy and Speedy), and eventually, the disability or death of a client.

For those who were not able to attend the Retreat (or just not able to attend our session), here is a summary of the issues that received the most attention during our four sessions:

  •  Do you represent couples jointly for estate planning?  If so, assume one of the
    client shares information with you and does not want the other half of the couple to know that information. Do you have an affirmative obligation to share that information with the other joint client? Do you only have to share the information if it affects the estate plan? Do you only have to share the information if it requires you to end the engagement?  Do you only have to share it if the other client asks for advice that requires you to use the information that was shared?  What conversations should you have with the couple before they become clients regarding these issues?  What type of written correspondence do you send discussing these types of issues?
  • Should you represent the family business?  This discussion did divide some of our groups and it gave rise to an important practical question.  Even if the ethical rules permit the representation, is it worth the effort required to work through the potential conflicts and the trouble that may arise in the future? 
  • Can you (or should you) continue to represent a couple during a divorce or individually after the divorce is final?  Should the terms of the couple’s separation agreement factor into your decision?
  • Should you represent one of the couple’s children, at the request of the couple, to draft a prenuptial agreement?  What if the couple is paying for your services?  What if the child’s view of the prenuptial agreement is different than the couple’s?
  • Can you (or should you) represent the couple in the sale of the family business to one of the children? 

I always enjoy the Retreat’s discussion group format because it provides a unique opportunity to pose interesting questions, pick people’s brains, challenge the status quo and hear real life war stories (there are some doozies out there!).  My thanks to all of you that participated in our discussion group and those that supported the Retreat. 

Payment of College Expenses for Beneficiaries – To Pay or Not to Pay?

/in , , , , , , , ,

By Kelly Cooper

Fiduciary clients regularly ask me what expenses can be paid out of a trust.  Generally, this requires an examination of the terms of the trust and the applicable law.  However, even after considering the terms of the trust and applicable law, trustees are often stuck in this grey area trying to determine what expenses may be paid.  As a result, I am always on the lookout for cases that might provide guidance for trustees in exercising their discretion.  Recently, a case from New York caught my eye.  Matter of McDonald, 100 A.D. 1349 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2012).

In this case, the grandfather created a trust for his twin granddaughters and appointed his daughter (the twins’ mother) to serve as trustee.  As trustee, the mother refused to pay for the twins’ college expenses and to purchase a car for their use.  The twins filed suit and asked the court to remove their mother as trustee and to award attorney fees.

The trial court removed the mother as trustee, bypassed the named successor trustee and appointed an attorney (who was not named in the trust) to serve as successor trustee.  The trial court found that the mother had failed to observe the terms of the trusts and had abused her fiduciary responsibilities and awarded attorney fees to the twins.  The mother appealed and the trial court was unanimously reversed.

In reversing and finding in favor of the trustee, the appellate court cited to Section 50 of the Restatement of Trusts and identified the following factors:

The terms of the trust.  The relevant terms of the trust were stated as follows: “[t]he Trustee shall pay or apply to or for the use of each such living grandchild of mine so much of the income, accumulated income and principal of such share at any time and from time to time as the Trustee deems advisable in [the Trustee’s] sole discretion not subject to judicial review, to provide for such grandchild’s maintenance, support, education, health and welfare, even to the point of exhausting the same.”  The trust also provided for fractional distributions to the twins at ages 30 and 32 and termination of the trust at age 35.

Other resources.  The court noted that one of the twins’ college expenses were paid in full by public benefits and that the other twin had failed to even complete the necessary applications for public college benefits and tuition assistance.  Further, the twins both had New York 529 College Savings accounts and the balances in those accounts were sufficient to pay college expenses.

Friction.  The appellate court noted that there was friction between the mother and her teenaged daughters, but found that mere friction or disharmony between a trustee and a beneficiary is not sufficient grounds to remove a trustee.   The appellate court quoted another New York case, stating, “If it were, an obstreperous malintentioned beneficiary could cause the removal of a competent trustee through no fault on the latter’s part.”