Boyd v. Boyd
57 So. 3d 1169
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Vernon E. Boyd, Sr. and Dorothy Daspit Boyd created The Vernon E. and Dorothy Daspit Boyd Living Trust, a common trust later dividing into two trusts upon the death of the first spouse.
- Vernon died April 30, 2001, causing the common trust to split into the first-to-die irrevocable trust (Vernon E. Boyd, Sr. Trust) and the survivor's revocable trust (Dorothy Daspit Boyd Living Trust).
- Dorothy remained income beneficiary of both trusts until her death on June 14, 2007; plaintiff Linda Grace Boyd and defendant John Brent Boyd are equal principal and successor income beneficiaries.
- Disputes arose over trust assets and expenditures, including a Salomon Smith Barney account and a house sale proceeds reportedly deposited into the attorney’s client trust account.
- Plaintiff sued in 2007, seeking an accounting under LSA-R.S. 9:2088 covering April 30, 2001 to date; trial court ordered accounting in 2008.
- Trial court held defendant in contempt in 2010 for failing to timely furnish an accounting, ordered fines, reimbursements, and attorney’s trust disbursements; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff's claim is perempted under RS 9:2234 | Boyd claims action not time-barred because no valid accounting was rendered. | Peremption applies after trustee renders an accounting; no accounting was timely delivered. | Not perempted; accounting not previously rendered meeting peremption. |
| Scope and timing of accounting under 9:2088 for the two trusts | Plaintiff entitled to accounting for the first-to-die irrevocable trust since 2001 and survivor's trust after 2007. | Only one unified trust; accounting should cover full period from 2001 forward. | Accounting split: from 2001 to 2007 for first-to-die irrevocable trust; from 2007 forward for survivor's trust. |
| Contempt for failure to furnish accounting and sufficiency of information provided | Defendant breached fiduciary duty by withholding information; contempt proper. | Information supplied was sufficient; contempt not warranted. | Contempt affirmed for failure to timely account; information provided insufficient for full accounting but not a basis to reverse contempt. |
| Car payments included in trust accounting; whether car was trust asset | Car payments were trust expenditures and part of accounting. | Car was not a trust asset; should not be in accounting. | Reversed in part: car payments improperly included; exclude $14,000 from accounting. |
| Reimbursements and distributions calculations | Plaintiff entitled to reimbursements for inappropriate expenditures and rental income share. | Disbursements should reflect trust terms and prior authorized expenditures. | Affirmed reimbursements of $25,360.64 and $52,231.81 for plaintiff's share; distributions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (clearly defined manifest error standard for fact-finding)
- Stobart v. State, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (standard for reviewing trial court findings)
- Mashburn Marital Trust, 924 So.2d 242 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2005) (trust accounting duties and de novo review on legal questions)
- Holladay v. Fidelity Nat. Bank of Baton Rouge, 312 So.2d 883 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975) (trustee must furnish information upon request)
- Cook v. Cook, 888 So.2d 1061 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2004) (timing of trustee accounting relevance to peremption)
- Lang v. Asten, Inc., 918 So.2d 453 (La.2006) (civil contempt standards and willful disobedience)
- Junot v. Morgan, 818 So.2d 152 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2002) (silence in judgment treated as rejection of issues litigated)
- Rogers v. Dickens, 959 So.2d 940 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt)