About the Firm
Holland & Hart is a full-service law firm with locations in 14 offices. Throughout the Mountain West, from coast to coast and beyond, Holland & Hart provides clients with sharp legal counsel from a vantage like no other. For more information, visit www.hollandhart.com or on Twitter: @HollandHart.
Disclaimer
This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.
Privacy Policy
View our privacy policy.
Your Secret’s Safe with Your Estate Planning Attorney, Or Is It?
/in Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Estate Planning, Fiduciary Litigation, Personal Representative, Testamentary Intent, Trustee, Will & Trust Constructionby Lauren A. Morris
A mother visits her attorney to discuss her estate plan. She expects that the conversations she has with her attorney will be forever confidential and privileged, particularly when she wishes to guard uncomfortable realities from her family members, such as her desire to disinherit her son. Upon the mother’s death, her disinherited son figures out that he is in fact removed from her estate plan. Here we have the classic scenario in which a snubbed child wants to challenge the provisions in the estate plan to prove that the decedent did not intentionally fail to provide for him. But with the mother now deceased, how do we determine her actual intent?
The mother’s estate planning attorney is in the next best position to ascertain her intent, but doesn’t the attorney’s duty of confidentiality to the mother prevent him from disclosing any information he may have regarding her intent, specifically when the mother thought she was speaking in confidence? Read more
Avoiding Fiduciary Conflicts of Interest
/in Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Personal Representative, Removal of Fiduciary, Surcharge of Fiduciaryby Carol Warnick
It is very difficult for a trustee to have conflicts of interest without breaching the duty of loyalty. We typically think of trustee conflicts as they relate to self-dealing by the trustee, which is almost always a problem and for which the beneficiaries can obtain redress. But I have seen more conflicts lately in my practice where a trustee is trustee of different trusts that have conflicting interests, or the trustee is serving as trustee of a trust and also as personal representative of an estate whose interests are in direct conflict with each other.
When faced with a conflict situation, a trustee needs to take action before he or she breaches the duty of loyalty, which is a bedrock duty owed by all fiduciaries. Restatement of Trusts § 78 (1) states that a “trustee has a duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries . . . .” That is not possible when the two trusts (or the trust and the estate) have conflicting interests and what the fiduciary does as trustee of one trust would be detrimental to the other. One example would be engaging in a specific transaction that is beneficial to the beneficiaries of one trust but harmful to the beneficiaries of the other trust or of the estate. Read more
No Contest Clauses – Not Just for Wills
/in Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Court Procedures, Fiduciary Discretion, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Personal Representative, Trustee, Will & Trust Constructionby Matthew Skotak
Fiduciary litigation continues to grow and often times outpaces the development of case law regarding the myriad of issues that arise in estate and trust disputes. Historically fiduciary litigation involved disputing family members or changes in family circumstances. However, another frequent source of litigation is the estate planning documents themselves. For this reason, estate planners often include a no contest clause, or in terrorem clause, in a will or trust as a means of deterring feuding beneficiaries from challenging the validity of the instrument; yet, enforcement of these no contest clauses carries its own burden.
A no contest clause is more frequently contained in a will, although it can also be prudent to include these provisions in trusts – especially when the underlying concern is to discourage litigation over the decedent’s estate plan by disinheriting a person who unsuccessfully contests the will and/or trust. The enforceability of these provisions varies from state to state; however, Colorado has determined that a no contest clause is valid when the contesting party lacks probable cause to bring their challenge. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-11-517, 15-12-905. Read more
Prudently Investing: What Trustees Need to Know
/in Administration of Trust, Fiduciary Discretion, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Trusteeby Matthew Skotak
Acting in the best interests of the trust and the trust beneficiaries, a trustee has the duty to protect and preserve trust assets and, generally, to make the assets productive. In making investment decisions and managing trust assets, the trustee must further abide by the “prudent investor rule,” which requires a trustee to exercise reasonable care, skill and caution. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-1.1-101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Prudent Investor Act”) and §§ 15-1-1101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act”).
Pursuant to the prudent investor rule, a trustee should consider broad investment factors, such as: current economic conditions, effects of inflation or deflation, tax consequences, the nature of closely-held business interests, alternative investments, expected returns on income and capital, other resources of the trust or trust beneficiaries, the need for liquidity versus preservation of capital, the production of income, the special value or relationship of a particular asset to the trust or the beneficiaries, diversification of investments, and more. See, Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 227. Additionally, while it is important to note that Colorado courts have not officially adopted the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, one could refer to § 90, which lists five helpful “principles” of the prudent investor rule. Generally, any single investment will not violate the prudent investor rule and the trustee should manage the trust portfolio as a whole taking into account these considerations. Read more
Is the Statute of Limitations Really Running?
/in Administration of Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Fiduciary Litigation, Trusteeby Matthew Skotak
The concept of a statute of limitations is easy to understand: a lawsuit has to be commenced within so many years after the complained of act occurred or pursuit of the lawsuit may be forever barred. Where it gets tricky are the exceptions to this rule. For example, if the wrongdoer concealed the wrongful act or the wrongful act occurred in some way that made it highly unlikely that the aggrieved person would know about it, then the statute of limitations should not start running until the injured person knows or through reasonable diligence should have known about the wrongful act. This “tolling” of the statute of limitations is typically referred to as the discovery rule: the statute of limitations doesn’t start running until a plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged wrongful act.
Not all states apply the discovery rule, and not all states apply it to every cause of action. However, many jurisdictions apply the discovery rule to fiduciary related actions. As an example, the equitable discovery rule was applied in Utah to a lawsuit regarding a trust. Read more
When Beneficiaries are Not Heirs
/in Administration of Estate, Administration of Trust, Estate Planning, Fiduciary Litigation, Testamentary Intent, Will & Trust Constructionby Jody H. Hall, Paralegal
The terms Beneficiary and Heir both refer to someone who receives an inheritance after someone passes away. However, while the terms are often used interchangeably, they do not always refer to the same individual or set of individuals. Heirs can be beneficiaries but beneficiaries are not always heirs.
In our practice, we often see issues arising when these 2 sets are not identical or are different than the expectations of the parties. Read more