Browning v. Brunt
195 A.3d 1123
Conn.2018Background
- Byram Browning established a revocable inter vivos trust in 1993 for his children; upon his 2006 death Victoria Peters became successor trustee.
- Peters allegedly withdrew and commingled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the trust; by the time she resigned and Van Brunt, DuBiago & Co., LLC (Van Brunt) was appointed successor trustee, ~ $70,000 remained.
- Plaintiffs (Byram’s children) sued multiple defendants: counts against Van Brunt and DuBiago (fiduciary duty, negligence) and a separate breach-of-contract claim (count three) against Dougherty & Co., LLC and an employee (financial advisors) for allegedly permitting Peters’ improper withdrawals.
- Plaintiffs did not allege they demanded Van Brunt bring suit on the trust’s behalf, nor did they expressly allege Van Brunt improperly refused or neglected to sue Dougherty.
- Defendants moved to dismiss count three for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing beneficiaries lack standing to sue third parties for trust claims absent trustee refusal/neglect; trial court granted the motion and judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do trust beneficiaries have standing to sue third parties on behalf of the trust? | Beneficiaries may sue under Restatement (Third) §107(2)(b) when the trustee improperly refuses or neglects to sue. | General rule: trustee holds legal title and is proper party; beneficiaries lack standing except where trustee refuses/neglects. | Beneficiaries generally lack standing; exception requires trustee refusal or improper neglect, not shown here. |
| Did plaintiffs adequately plead the exception (demand/refusal or improper neglect) and was dismissal via motion to dismiss appropriate? | Plaintiffs argued their allegations (and DuBiago’s statements re: depleted funds) implied improper neglect, making demand unnecessary. | Defendants: plaintiffs never demanded trustee sue; complaint lacks allegations of trustee refusal/neglect; standing is jurisdictional so dismissal is proper. | Complaint failed to allege demand/refusal or facts necessarily implying improper neglect; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606 (review of motion to dismiss may consider complaint plus undisputed record facts)
- Arciniega v. Feliciano, 329 Conn. 293 (standing implicates subject matter jurisdiction)
- Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376 (court lacks discretion to decide merits without jurisdiction)
- Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206 (elements of aggrievement/standing)
- Palmer v. Hartford Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 160 Conn. 415 (trustee’s legal title grounds trustee’s standing; beneficiaries not proper parties)
- Naier v. Beckenstein, 131 Conn. App. 638 (interpreting beneficiaries’ bar to suing third parties)
- Preston v. Preston, 102 Conn. 96 (beneficiary must demand trustee sue and be refused to invoke exception)