Cook v. Brateng
262 P.3d 1228 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trustee does not breach fiduciary duties by failing to inform a remainder beneficiary about routine trust management decisions, such as deferring caregiver compensation or not encumbering property, if those decisions are within the trustee's broad discretion to manage for the primary beneficiary's welfare and do not significantly prejudice the remainder beneficiary's interest. A trustee can compensate herself for personal caregiving services if the trust allows for hiring employees and the compensation is reasonable.
Facts:
- In November 1995, Elmer Cook executed a living trust, naming himself and his daughter, Diane Brateng, as trustees.
- In November 1997, Elmer was declared incompetent, and Diane became the sole trustee of his trust.
- The trust required Diane, in her sole and absolute discretion, to apply trust property exclusively for Elmer's health, support, maintenance, and general welfare, and upon Elmer's death, directed that remaining property be divided with Diane and John Cook (Elmer's son) each receiving a 9/20th share, and Diane receiving Elmer's Ilwaco home as part of her share.
- After Elmer's incompetence, Diane moved him into her home in Kirkland, Washington, where she cared for him from November 1997 until Elmer's death in January 2000.
- During Elmer's care, Diane used $59,176.67 from the trust's liquid funds for Elmer's medical and personal expenses, and for maintaining, repairing, and remodeling the Ilwaco home, including $20,319.75 for water damage and kitchen remodeling.
- Diane kept meticulous records of her time and expenses related to caring for Elmer, including 24-hour in-home care, travel to Ilwaco, and personally paid bills, totaling a claim of $142,171.10.
- Diane did not disclose her intention to claim reimbursement for her caregiving services or her decision not to encumber the Ilwaco house to John until he filed suit and requested an accounting.
- John lived on property adjoining Elmer's Ilwaco home and observed Diane maintaining it and providing care for Elmer.
Procedural Posture:
- John Cook filed suit against Diane Brateng in October 2001.
- The dispute proceeded through mediation and arbitration under the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act.
- John appealed the arbitrator's decision and requested a trial de novo in the trial court.
- The trial court concluded that Diane breached her fiduciary duties by failing to inform John about her deferred caregiving charges and her decision not to encumber the Ilwaco house.
- The trial court ruled that Diane could not compensate herself for caregiving, awarded her the Ilwaco house but gave John a 9/20th interest in its 2007 appraised value, and awarded John $24,425 in attorney fees while awarding Diane half her requested fees.
- Diane Brateng, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's division of Elmer Cook's trust property to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, with John Cook as Respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trustee breach her fiduciary duty to inform a remainder beneficiary by not disclosing her decisions to defer claiming compensation for caregiving services and not to encumber trust property for those services, when these actions are within her broad discretion to manage for the primary beneficiary's welfare and do not significantly prejudice the remainder beneficiary's interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Bridgewater, P.J.
No, Diane Brateng did not breach her fiduciary duties by failing to inform John Cook about her deferred caregiving charges or her decision not to encumber the Ilwaco house, nor did she breach her duties by compensating herself for caregiving services and property repairs. The court first determined that neither the trust document nor applicable statutes (RCW 11.106.020, RCW 11.106.040) required Diane to provide John, as a remainder beneficiary, with an accounting during Elmer's lifetime because John was not 'eligible to receive mandatory or discretionary distributions' while Elmer was alive. John also never requested an accounting. While trustees have a general duty to inform beneficiaries of 'all facts which would aid them in protecting their interests' (citing Allard v. Pac. Nat'l Bank), this duty applies to matters that 'significantly affect' the beneficiaries' interests. Unlike in Allard, where selling the sole trust asset significantly affected beneficiaries' interests, providing care for Elmer was a routine practice to fulfill the trust's primary purpose. The trust specifically gave Diane 'sole and absolute discretion' to use trust assets for Elmer's health, support, and welfare. John could reasonably expect his elderly, incompetent father to require substantial care, potentially consuming trust assets. Therefore, Diane's management of care costs (whether paid immediately or deferred) did not significantly prejudice John's remainder interest, nor did her decision not to encumber the Ilwaco house. Regarding compensation, the court distinguished Diane's role as trustee (fiduciary duties) from her role as caregiver (employee). The trust allowed the trustee to 'reasonably compensate those persons employed by my Trustee,' and Diane, as an individual providing care, falls under this provision. Therefore, she could compensate herself reasonably for caregiving services, separate from her trustee fees. Diane also had authority under the trust to 'preserve' real estate. Repairing water damage and remodeling the kitchen were actions taken to maintain and improve the Ilwaco home as an appreciating asset, consistent with her discretion. The court affirmed the trial court's use of the 2007 appraised value of $217,000 for the Ilwaco home due to Diane's lack of argument and authority on appeal. The court vacated the award of attorney fees to John, finding them improperly awarded because Diane did not breach her fiduciary duties, and remanded for an award of reasonable attorney fees to Diane.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a trustee's duty to inform beneficiaries, particularly distinguishing between routine management within the trust's primary purpose and "significant" transactions that necessitate disclosure. It reinforces that a remainder beneficiary's interest may be subject to the trustee's broad discretion in providing for the primary beneficiary. The decision also provides important guidance on a trustee's ability to be compensated for providing services beyond traditional fiduciary duties, treating the trustee as an employee when performing such services, provided the trust allows for hiring. This limits potential claims of breach of fiduciary duty where a trustee self-compensates for necessary services not explicitly prohibited by the trust.
