Giraldin v. Giraldin
55 Cal. 4th 1058, 290 P.3d 199 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the settlor of a revocable inter vivos trust dies and the trust becomes irrevocable, the remainder beneficiaries have standing to sue the trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty committed while the settlor was alive and the trust was still revocable, to the extent the breach harmed the beneficiaries' interests.
Facts:
- William Giraldin and Mary Giraldin were married in 1959, and William adopted Mary's children, totaling nine children including their twin sons, Timothy and Patrick.
- In February 2002, William created the revocable William A. Giraldin Trust, naming himself as the sole lifetime beneficiary and Timothy as the trustee; Mary and the nine children were remainder beneficiaries.
- William reserved specific rights, including the power to amend or revoke the trust and direct the trustee's actions, but these rights could only be exercised in writing.
- William intended to invest approximately $4 million, about two-thirds of his fortune, into SafeTzone Technologies Corporation (SafeTzone), a company started by Patrick and partly owned by Timothy.
- Between February 2002 and May 2003, William made six payments totaling over $4 million to invest in SafeTzone, with the stock later transferred into the trust's name.
- William Giraldin died in May 2005, by which time the investment in SafeTzone had gone badly, and the trust’s interest in the company was worth very little.
- The trial court later found that William was not sufficiently mentally competent in late 2001 and thereafter to either analyze the benefits and risks of an investment in SafeTzone or to authorize and direct Timothy to make such an investment, and Timothy did not obtain William's authorization in writing for many actions as required by the trust.
Procedural Posture:
- Four of William's children (Patricia Gray, Christine Giraldin, Michael Giraldin, and Philip Giraldin, referred to as plaintiffs) sued Timothy, in his capacity as trustee of the William A. Giraldin Trust, in court for breach of fiduciary duties.
- The plaintiffs alleged Timothy squandered William’s savings, sought his removal as trustee, an accounting, and that he be surcharged for the SafeTzone investment and other loans.
- A court trial was held in October and November 2008, resulting in a judgment in plaintiffs' favor.
- The trial court found Timothy violated his fiduciary duty, ordered his removal as trustee, and surcharged him for the $4,376,044 SafeTzone investment and $625,619 for other disbursements.
- Timothy appealed the trial court's judgment.
- The Court of Appeal requested additional briefing on whether plaintiffs had standing to maintain claims for breach of fiduciary duty and to seek an accounting based on Timothy's actions before William's death.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the beneficiaries lacked standing to complain of breaches of duty occurring prior to William’s death, as the trustee’s duties were owed solely to the settlor during that period.
- Plaintiffs petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which was granted, limited to the question of beneficiaries' standing to sue for pre-death breaches of fiduciary duty.
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 remainder beneficiary of a revocable inter vivos trust have standing to sue the trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty committed during the settlor's lifetime, after the settlor has died and the trust has become irrevocable?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, beneficiaries do have standing to sue the trustee for breaches of fiduciary duty committed during the settlor's lifetime after the settlor dies. While Probate Code section 15800 makes clear that a trustee's duties are owed solely to the settlor during the settlor's lifetime and competence, and beneficiaries' rights are postponed during this period, this postponement implies that these rights vest and become enforceable upon the settlor's death. Probate Code sections 16420, 16462, 16069, 17200, and 24, subdivision (c), read together, support the conclusion that beneficiaries gain standing to seek redress for harm to their interests. Denying such standing would allow trustees to escape accountability for breaches concealed from a competent settlor, or for actions taken during a settlor's incapacity, thereby rewarding wrongdoing. Furthermore, common law principles, as recognized by Probate Code section 15002, legal treatises, and courts in other jurisdictions (e.g., Florida and the Uniform Trust Code comments), generally support this standing. The existence of other potential remedies, such as an elder abuse claim or a suit by a personal representative under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.30, does not preclude beneficiaries from bringing a direct action, especially when the personal representative and the trustee are the same person. Contingent beneficiaries, such as the children while Mary is still alive, also have standing under the Probate Code.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
No, beneficiaries do not have standing to sue the trustee on the deceased settlor's behalf for a breach of fiduciary duty committed during the settlor's lifetime. Probate Code section 15800 explicitly states that during the settlor's lifetime, the trustee's duties are owed exclusively to the settlor, not the beneficiaries. A cause of action that survives the death of a person, according to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.30, passes to the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, the decedent's successor in interest, implying this is the exclusive mechanism for such claims. Allowing beneficiaries to sue on the settlor's behalf creates a conflict of interest, as their goal of maximizing their inheritance may clash with the settlor's original intent, especially when the trust document grants the trustee broad discretionary powers and waives the prudent person standard. The various Probate Code sections cited by the majority, such as 16069 (accounting), 16420 (defining 'breach of trust' as a violation of duty owed to the beneficiary), 16462 (trustee liability to beneficiaries after settlor's death), and 17200 (beneficiary petitions), do not implicitly grant beneficiaries standing to sue for breaches of duty owed solely to the settlor during the settlor's lifetime.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the legal landscape for beneficiaries of revocable trusts in California. By establishing that remainder beneficiaries have standing to sue for breaches of fiduciary duty committed during the settlor's lifetime, the California Supreme Court ensures accountability for trustees even after the settlor's death. This ruling prevents trustees from escaping liability for self-dealing, mismanagement, or other malfeasance hidden from or perpetrated against a settlor, particularly if the settlor was incapacitated. The decision bolsters beneficiary protections and affirms that the postponement of rights during revocability does not extinguish the ability to seek redress once the trust becomes irrevocable, emphasizing the ultimate purpose of the trust to benefit the designated heirs.
