Frank Lamson v. Roger Lamson, 168 A.3d 454

Background

Virginia Newman created a revocable trust; during the relevant period she, her sons Frank and Roger, and a bank served as co‑trustees.
In Jan 2009, $25,941 was transferred from a trust account to a joint account held by Virginia and Frank; the next day Virginia purchased a 2009 Subaru (signed the bill of sale).
Roger alleged Frank used the 2009 Subaru (and an existing 2000 Subaru) for personal benefit, commissioned an accountant who valued excess use at $44,580, and sued for breach of trust.
Probate court found for Roger on the vehicle‑use claim, ordered Frank to pay $44,580 under the no‑further‑inquiry/self‑dealing rule.
On de novo review, the civil division granted Frank summary judgment: it concluded the cars were not shown to be trust property, Virginia consented/ratified the transfer and purchase, and Roger produced no evidence trust funds paid operating expenses.
The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Frank, holding Roger’s damage theory failed as a matter of law and that Virginia’s consent/ratchification defeated a voidability claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roger)	Defendant's Argument (Frank)	Held
Whether Frank breached fiduciary duty by using trust property (the Subarus) for personal use	The 2009 Subaru was effectively a trust asset because trust funds were moved to buy it and Frank used it; seek damages for excess personal use ($44,580)	No evidence the cars were trust assets or that trust funds paid operating expenses; the proper remedy for any improper transfer would be repayment of transferred principal, not mileage damages	Held for Frank—no admissible evidence the cars were trust property or that trust paid operating expenses; damages claim fails as a matter of law
Whether the Jan 2009 transfer of trust funds to the joint account and purchase of the 2009 Subaru is voidable self‑dealing	Transfer was a trustee transaction benefiting Frank and thus presumptively voidable under the UTC/self‑dealing doctrine	Virginia, the settlor and beneficiary of the revocable trust, requested/authorized the transfer, signed the bill of sale, and later transferred title to Frank—so transaction was consented to/ratified	Held for Frank—undisputed evidence of Virginia’s consent/ratification defeats voidability; summary judgment for Frank affirmed
Whether Roger met burden to show breach despite presumption trustees act in good faith	Relied on circumstantial facts (Virginia’s frailty, excess mileage, bank contact info) and accountant’s valuation to infer improper self‑dealing	Trustee presumption of regularity and lack of proof Frank caused transfer or paid vehicle expenses; bank records show transfer per Virginia’s request	Held for Frank—plaintiff failed to produce evidence to overcome presumption or to show trustee entered transaction for his personal account
Whether plaintiff preserved and framed proper remedy (repayment vs. mileage compensation)	Sought damages based on federal mileage rate as recovery for personal use of the cars	Proper remedy for a voidable self‑dealing transfer would be rescission/repayment of transferred trust principal; mileage formula improperly assumes trust paid operating costs	Held for Frank—Roger sought an inappropriate damages measure and did not seek repayment; expert mileage damages unsupported because no evidence trust paid operating costs

Key Cases Cited

In re Ziegler's Trusts, 157 So.2d 549 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (presumption trustees act in good faith)
Becker v. Becker, 416 A.2d 156 (Vt. 1980) (remedy for fraudulent conveyance/breach is to restore beneficiary to prior position)
In re Estate of Kurrelmeyer, 895 A.2d 207 (Vt. 2006) (summary judgment standard explained)
Travelers Ins. Cos. v. Demarle, Inc., USA, 878 A.2d 267 (Vt. 2005) (moving party bears burden at summary judgment)
In re Estates of Allen, 30 A.3d 662 (Vt. 2011) (scope of de novo civil review of probate matters)
In re Newman, 117 A.3d 424 (Vt. 2015) (standing of beneficiary after settlor’s death)