Minn. Stat. § 501B.14

Morrison v. Doyle · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Margolis Revocable Trust · 2009 14 citations

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

Lorberbaum v. Huff · 2009 13 citations

+ 13 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Revocable Trust of Margolis · 2007 15 citations

Appellant-co-beneficiary of a trust challenges the district court’s affirmation of *541 respondent-co-trustee’s accounting. Appellant argues that respondent’s use of trust funds to pay for the beneficiary’s medical care was barred by Minn. Stat. § 501B.14 (2006) and that by using trust funds in this way, respondent breached fiduciary duties. Appellant also maintains that the court clearly erred in finding that a $100,000 Norwest certificate of deposit (CD) was not trust property. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Norwest CD was not trust property, we affirm that finding. But because the district court erred in its interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. § 501B.14, we reverse that portion of the decision. And because the district court did not adequately consider appellant’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, we remand for consideration of those claims, the appropriate remedy, and possible damages.

Appellant-co-beneficiary of a trust challenges the district court’s affirmation of *541 respondent-co-trustee’s accounting. Appellant argues that respondent’s use of trust funds to pay for the beneficiary’s medical care was barred by Minn. Stat. § 501B.14 (2006) and that by using trust funds in this way, respondent breached fiduciary duties. Appellant also maintains that the court clearly erred in finding that a $100,000 Norwest certificate of deposit (CD) was not trust property. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Norwest CD was not trust property, we affirm that finding. But because the district court erred in its interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. § 501B.14, we reverse that portion of the decision. And because the district court did not adequately consider appellant’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, we remand for consideration of those claims, the appropriate remedy, and possible damages.

Appellant-co-beneficiary of a trust challenges the district court’s affirmation of *541 respondent-co-trustee’s accounting. Appellant argues that respondent’s use of trust funds to pay for the beneficiary’s medical care was barred by Minn. Stat. § 501B.14 (2006) and that by using trust funds in this way, respondent breached fiduciary duties. Appellant also maintains that the court clearly erred in finding that a $100,000 Norwest certificate of deposit (CD) was not trust property. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Norwest CD was not trust property, we affirm that finding. But because the district court erred in its interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. § 501B.14, we reverse that portion of the decision. And because the district court did not adequately consider appellant’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, we remand for consideration of those claims, the appropriate remedy, and possible damages.

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.