Petitions For Instructions And Declarations Of Rights---Not All Trust Litigation Is Necessarily Nasty

Frequently trust litigation stems from a heated dispute between trustees and beneficiaries, or co-trustees who cannot agree on the trust administration, or beneficiaries who cannot agree on their respective rights under a trust instrument, or other disagreements between various parties incident to a trust.  When such disputes cannot be resolved amicably by the parties themselves, with or without the assistance of legal counsel, sometimes the only practical recourse is to file suit and let a judge or jury decide who should prevail depending upon the facts,  circumstances and evidence. 

With this in mind, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-201(b)  does not mandate continuing court supervision of trusts.  Rather, a court may intervene in the administration of a trust whenever it is asked to by an “interested person or as provided by law.”  Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-201(a).  Such judicial proceedings involving a trust “may relate to any matter involving the trust’s administration, including a request for instructions and an action to declare rights.”  Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-201(c) (emphasis added). 

In sum, occasionally trust-related judicial proceedings do not involve an alleged breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of assets, etc.  That's a good thing because such disputes---often involving family members fighting over money---can turn into some of the ugliest and most contentious wealth wars imaginable. 

Rather, petitions for instructions and requests for declaratory judgments---such as the ones contemplated in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-201(c)---are typically less heated because theoretically they involve an innocuous request that the court merely provide instructions or guidance to the trustee or beneficiaries. Perhaps the proceeding stems from an alleged ambiguity in the trust terms, maybe there is a question regarding which beneficiaries are supposed to receive trust income or principal, or possibly the court is simply being asked to declare the rights and obligations of various individuals associated with the trust.  

While these matters can still be adversarial in nature, they are usually not the classic battles in which someone is claiming that another party necessarily engaged in intentional fraud or other wrongdoing.  Accordingly, when appropriate this type of proceeding should be considered as an option whenever there is a need for court intervention in a situation which does not necessarily rise to the level of a full-blown  "divorce on steroids," as we sometimes call the nastiest of the inheritance-related disputes in which we are frequently asked to become involved. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Common Mistakes When Serving As Trustee

My last post discussed the pros and cons of institutional trustees vs. family member trustees.  Regardless of whom is serving as trustee, in the course of my law practice there are common themes which repeatedly arise in the area of trust disputes and litigation.  Specifically, it is easy for trustees---especially inexperienced family member trustees---to make mistakes when administering a trust.  Some of these were nicely summarized in a recent article, published in Barron's Penta, entitled "The Five Biggest Ways To Bungle A Trust." 

(1) Not Keeping Good Trust Records---The Arkansas Trust Code, and presumably trust laws in most if not all other states, contain requirements mandating that trustees provide beneficiaries with accountings of trust assets, income, expenditures, etc.  The timing and extent of those accountings can vary based upon certain factors, including whether one is an income beneficiary or a remainder beneficiary.  However, at all times the trustee is to act in the interest of the beneficiaries, which includes maintaining comprehensive and accurate records.  Trustees who do not keep such records act at their own peril, as gaps and inaccuracies in documentation (even if purely innocent) can create an aura of suspicion and sometimes later liability for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. 

(2) Not Diversifying Trust Investments---Another duty which too often goes unfulfilled is the trustee's obligation to properly diversify trust investments.  Just because the trustee might handle their own investment portfolio in a certain manner does not mean that the investments are being properly handled with regard to the beneficiaries of the trust.  For example, if the beneficiary is an elderly person in need of income, having the trust's assets invested in 100% tech stocks is not likely to be deemed a wise investment strategy.  Arkansas has a Prudent Investor Act which must be reviewed and followed, and it is based upon a well-recognized uniform act that is utilized in many other jurisdictions as well. 

(3) Not Distributing Trust Assets Fairly---A trustee owes a fiduciary duty to current beneficiaries, as well as to remainder beneficiaries.  Sometimes this can create problems when a duty to one conflicts with a duty to another.  Also, sometimes in the case of family member trustees, the trustee is herself a beneficiary (e.g., perhaps the father named his daughter as trustee of his trust after his death, but also named her as a beneficiary like his two sons/her two brothers).  Especially when no trustee fee is involved (see below), we have seen cases in which the trustee is tempted to take extra distributions, etc. as purported justification for being saddled with the extra time and work associated with acting as trustee.  This can be dangerous as it can constitute an actual impropriety, or at least suggest an appearance of impropriety.  It is therefore wise to maintain clear and well-documented records of all distribution decisions.

(4) Not Properly Handling The Trustee Fee---The fact is that administering a trust can involve a lot of work.  It can be very profitable, which is precisely why institutional trustees exist.  Families often do not want to see their assets being consumed in part by the fees of an institutional trustee (notwithstanding some of the advantages to using one), and so often a family member is named as trustee.  The family member, however, might have a time-consuming occupation and/or an active family life.  Adding the trustee duties on top of an already-busy schedule can naturally trigger a desire for some sort of compensation associated with the extra work.  Whatever the trustee fee arrangement is (assuming trustee fees are paid at all), similar to asset distributions discussed above it is wise for there to be a well-documented record of how trustee fees will be paid, when they will be paid, and how they will be calculated.

(5) Not Watching Your Back---A trusteeship has been viewed as involving the highest duty owed another under the law.  It entails a tremendous amount of responsibility, and should not be lightly regarded.  Individuals named as trustee in a trust instrument often view it as an honor, which is fine so long as the trustee treats it as such.  However, money has an uncanny way of sometimes causing people---including trustees and beneficiaries---to engage in actions and behavior which they (and others) perhaps never previously conceived.  Occasionally this will result in nasty disputes between trustees and beneficiaries which can ultimately erupt into actual litigation.  A trustee might innocently take on that "oath of office," so to speak, never imagining that they might someday be mired in stressful, expensive disagreements with once-close friends or family members.  On that note, typically the trustee's dispute is not with the person who named them as trustee (i.e., in a revocable trust situation the grantor of the trust can simply remove or change the trustee)---instead, the fight will frequently be with the children or grandchildren of the grantor. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Frank Talk On Attorney's Fees

One of the first questions that a potential inheritance litigation client quite reasonably asks is some form of the following question: “How much is this ultimately going to cost me?”  While there is unfortunately little or no way of determining on the front end how much a legal matter might cost, how that cost will be calculated generally is capable of early determination.  There are typically three primary ways in which an attorney charges for his or her services, and of course occasionally a couple of these methods can be combined together to create a “mixed” fee arrangement.

1.  HOURLY FEE

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade."  Accordingly, the most common fee arrangement is based upon an hourly fee, i.e., the lawyer charges an hourly rate for their time and the ultimate fee is determined upon how much time the lawyer has to spend on the representation.  For example, if I was retained by the trustee of a trust to defend against claims brought by a beneficiary of the trust, I would charge the trustee an hourly fee and the ultimate bill would be determined upon how much time I had to spend working on the trustee’s case.  The same goes for a beneficiary pursuing claims against the trustee.

Obviously, the more time-consuming the case the more expensive the representation (and vice versa).  Hourly rates in Arkansas are by and large considerably lower than in other, more populated and wealthier areas of the country, especially the East and West Coasts.  There are a number of factors which determine the hourly rate, including but not limited to the complexity of the area of law, the attorney’s experience and reputation, the attorney's location, etc.

2.  CONTINGENCY FEE

A second, but less common, fee arrangement in inheritance disputes (and other litigation for that matter) is a “contingency fee.”  This is an arrangement which is necessarily only used by the person bringing the lawsuit, as opposed to the person defending the action.  Specifically, the lawyer and the client agree that the lawyer will accept a percentage of whatever amount is recovered (if anything) as the lawyer’s fee for the representation.  A common percentage is anywhere from 25-50%, and rarely will the percentage stray outside of that range.  Usually the lawyer and the client will come to an agreement on the front end regarding who will pay for the various costs (filing fees, deposition expenses, copies, postage, etc.) and sometimes the lawyer will advance those expenses and then take them “off the top” in the event of any recovery.

As one can tell, under this arrangement the more favorable the recovery, the higher the lawyer’s fee.  However, there is also added risk for the attorney because if there is little or no recovery, or if the client prevails but the judgment is uncollectible as a practical matter (the defendant has no money, etc.), then the lawyer loses just like the client.  Given the fact that litigation can often take years, essentially the attorney is working for free for a long period of time before recouping out-of-pocket expenses much less any fee for the work performed.

This type of arrangement can be beneficial in situations wherein an individual might not be able to afford an hourly arrangement.  Again, the potential downside is that, unlike a rear-end collision wherein liability in a personal injury case might be very clear, liability in estate, trust, or probate litigation can often be quite unclear and unpredictable.  Therefore, in cases where liability is unclear or in cases in which the defendant could potentially have counterclaims against the plaintiff, contingency fee arrangements will probably not be the ideal arrangement.  Occasionally, a lawyer will be willing to combine a lower hourly fee (perhaps charging 2/3 of their regular hourly rate) with a lower-than-usual contingency percentage (perhaps 25% instead of 33% or more), therefore creating a mixed hourly/contingency fee arrangement.

 3.  FLAT FEE

Finally, the third and least common type of fee arrangement is simply a “flat fee” paid for a certain amount of services.  In other words, the lawyer and the client agree that a certain type of service or a certain number of actions will be taken by the lawyer to represent the client (drafting a certain amount of letters, preparing an agreement, etc.).  For that finite amount of services the lawyer and client agree on a specific fee.  This gives both the lawyer and the client a greater degree of predictability, but it is an often impractical arrangement in estate, trust and probate disputes because litigation is unpredictable and can rarely be reduced to only a certain number of actions.  However, in certain situations it can be used effectively and should not automatically be discarded.

In conclusion, the best fee arrangement in a particular situation will necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances.  While the free market has resulted in lawyers no doubt being expensive, when it comes to the amounts of money and high stakes involved in inheritance litigation, many times the lawyer’s fee can be a mere drop in the bucket.  For example, if a plaintiff potentially goes without recovering some or all of a large inheritance that they were otherwise supposed to receive, then hiring an attorney can even be construed as a wise investment.  Likewise, if a trustee could potentially be removed from her office or is wrongfully accused of harming the trust and causing substantial damages, hiring representation is a necessity rather than a luxury (incidentally, sometimes trustees' attorney fees can be paid out a trust or reimbursed by a trust).  In certain situations (breach of contract, breach of trust, etc.) the prevailing party also may be able to recover some or all of their attorney’s fees expended.  In essence, every situation is different and unfortunately there are simply no guarantees when it comes to the outcome of a legal matter nor the attorney fees necessary to handle that legal matter.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Removal Of A Trustee Under Arkansas Law

My previous blog post generally discussed principles associated with the removal of executors or personal representatives of an estate.  This post is similar except that it analyzes this issue in the context of trusts rather than estates.  Every trustee of a trust, and every beneficiary of a trust, should be aware of these principles as well.  

To remedy a breach of trust under the Arkansas Trust Code, the Court may:

(1) compel the trustee to perform the trustee’s duties;

(2) enjoin the trustee from committing a breach of trust;

(3) compel the trustee to redress a breach of trust by paying money, restoring property, or other means;

(4) order a trustee to account;

(5) appoint a special fiduciary to take possession of the trust property and administer the trust;

(6) suspend the trustee;

(7) remove the trustee as provided in § 28-73-706;

(8) reduce or deny compensation to the trustee;

(9) subject to §28-73-1012, void an act of the trustee, impose a lien or a constructive trust on property, or trace trust property wrongfully disposed of and recover the property or its proceeds, or

(10) order any other appropriate relief. 

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-1001(b).

Also, section 706 of the Trust Code further elaborates on the removal of an trustee:

(a) the settlor, a co-trustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.

(b) A court may remove a trustee if:

(1) the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;

(2) lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust;

(3) because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries;

(4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds the removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all of the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and suitable co-trustee or successor trustee is available.

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-706(a) and (b) (emphasis added).

So, as one can tell the grounds for removal of a trustee are very broad.  Accordingly, similar to estates, those administering trusts in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of a trust should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the trustee to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove trustees where the facts and circumstances warrant it. 

Statute Of Limitations For Breach Of Trust Suits Against Trustees

A couple of the most frequent questions in estate, trust, and probate litigation are:

(from trust beneficiaries)  "How long do I have to sue a trustee for breach of trust?", and

(from trustees or potential trustees)  "How long must I be concerned about potentially being sued for an alleged breach of trust?"

The Arkansas Trust Code (at Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 28-73-1005) addresses this issue and generally provides for two possible limitations of action:  (1) a shorter period when the trustee discloses the existence of a claim; and (2) a longer period if the trustee does not make a disclosure.

Basically, if the trustee discloses sufficient information to put the beneficiary on notice that they may have a potential claim, the beneficiary has one year after the date of the disclosure in which to bring suit.  Absent such a disclosure, the beneficiary has five years after the first to occur of: 

(1) the removal, resignation, or death of the trustee;

(2) the termination of the beneficiary's interest; or

(3) the termination of the trust

 in which to commence a claim against the trustee for the breach.

One question that does not appear answered by this statute (or any cases which so far have interpreted the statute) is whether the statute of limitation for breach of trust can be "tolled," or suspended, in situations where the trustee has engaged in fraudulent concealment.  If there has been concealment, Arkansas courts have generally held in other contexts that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the person having the cause of action discovers the fraud or should have discovered it by the exercise of reasonable diligence. 

Eventually the Arkansas Court of Appeals or Arkansas Supreme Court will, once and for all, specifically decide whether or not the doctrine of fraudulent concealment also applies to the statute of limitations set forth in the Arkansas Trust Code.   Perhaps in doing so they can shed light on what statute of limitations, if any, applies to breaches of trust that are not governed by the Arkansas Trust Code (which only came into effect on September 1, 2005).