Hearst v. Ganzi
145 Cal. App. 4th 1195, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 16487, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 473 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A no-contest clause in a will will be enforced against a proposed action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty of impartiality if the trust instrument explicitly grants the trustees broad discretion concerning asset management and income/corpus distribution, and the proposed action does not allege bad faith, gross neglect, or fraudulent misconduct by the trustees that exceeds the trust instrument's specified limitations on liability.
Facts:
- William Randolph Hearst (WRH) died in 1951, establishing the Hearst Family Trust through his will for the benefit of his descendants.
- The Trust is the sole shareholder of the common stock of the Hearst Corporation, one of the largest diversified communication companies in the world.
- WRH’s will granted the Trustees extensive discretion, including the power to continue to hold the Corporation indefinitely, not dispose of its businesses unless necessary or prudent, hold assets regardless of their income production, and decide what constitutes income or principal of the Trust.
- The will included a broad no-contest clause, stipulating that any proceeding tending to change, annul, revoke, set aside, or invalidate the will or its trust provisions would lead to the forfeiture of the challenging beneficiary’s interest.
- The will explicitly limited the Trustees’ personal liability to losses occurring only by reason of their "own individual gross neglect or fraudulent misconduct."
- The Hearst Corporation, with Trustees participating in its board decisions, generally distributes approximately 20% of its available cash as dividends to the Trust for distribution to income beneficiaries, while retaining about 80% for corporate growth, investment, and debt repayment, a policy that primarily benefits the remainder beneficiaries.
- William R. Hearst II, Deborah Hearst, and Phoebe Hearst Cooke are among the 17 current income beneficiaries of the Trust.
- These income beneficiaries alleged that the income yielded by the Trust's corporate stock, approximately 1.19% to 1.29% annually in recent years, was substantially lower than typical trust investments, thereby favoring remainder beneficiaries over current income beneficiaries.
Procedural Posture:
- Deborah Hearst and William R. Hearst II, income beneficiaries of the Trust, filed a 'Petition For Determination That Proposed Petition Will Not Violate No Contest Clause' under Probate Code section 21320 in the state trial court.
- Phoebe Hearst Cooke subsequently filed a joinder in this petition.
- The Trustees (Victor F. Ganzi, et al.) filed a verified response with supporting legal arguments, contending that the proposed petition would violate the no-contest clause by interfering with the Trustees' management and WRH's wishes.
- The state trial court heard the matter and issued an order on June 1, 2005, finding that the proposed petition of Deborah, William, and Phoebe 'does violate the no contest clause contained in the will'.
- Deborah, William, and Phoebe filed timely notices of appeal from the state trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
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 proposed petition by income beneficiaries alleging that trustees breached their fiduciary duty of impartiality by maintaining a dividend policy favoring remainder beneficiaries constitute a 'contest' under a broad no-contest clause, when the trust instrument explicitly grants trustees discretion to manage assets and determine income/corpus, and the petition does not allege bad faith, gross neglect, or fraudulent misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, P. J.
Yes, the proposed petition by William R. Hearst II, Deborah Hearst, and Phoebe Hearst Cooke, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty of impartiality against the Trustees, would constitute a contest within the meaning of the no-contest clause in William Randolph Hearst's will. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, emphasizing that while trustees generally owe a duty of impartiality (§ 16003), this duty can be altered by the trust instrument (§ 16000). WRH's will specifically grants the Trustees broad discretion "to decide what is income and what is corpus or principal" and "to hold assets regardless of the amount of income they produce," thereby explicitly authorizing them to treat income and remainder beneficiaries differently regarding income production. The proposed petition challenges the Corporation's dividend policy, which is a core business operation and integral to the Trust's long-term strategy of perpetuating WRH's media empire, as allowed by the will. Furthermore, the will explicitly limits the Trustees' personal liability to "gross neglect or fraudulent misconduct." The proposed petition did not allege such egregious conduct, bad faith, or improper motives, but rather based its claim solely on the financial disparity between beneficiary classes. Therefore, seeking to compel a change in dividend policy or impose personal liability without meeting the higher standard of misconduct set forth in the will directly conflicts with the trust's provisions and the testator's intent, and thus falls within the scope of the no-contest clause.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interplay between a trustee's statutory duty of impartiality and a testator's explicit grant of discretion within a trust instrument, especially concerning no-contest clauses. It reinforces the principle that a testator's intent, as expressed in the will, can modify default statutory duties. The ruling creates a high bar for beneficiaries seeking to challenge trustee actions when the trust document grants broad discretionary powers and limits liability, requiring allegations of gross neglect, fraudulent misconduct, or bad faith to avoid triggering a no-contest clause. This decision potentially limits the utility of 'safe harbor' provisions for beneficiaries challenging discretionary trustee decisions that are explicitly permitted by the trust terms.
