Giraldin v. Giraldin
55 Cal. 4th 1058
| Cal. | 2012Background
- William Giraldin created a revocable inter vivos trust in 2002, naming Timothy as trustee with William as sole lifetime beneficiary and the remainder to Mary and the nine children.
- The trust granted William broad powers to revoke/amend and direct the trustee, and limited disclosure and reporting to William during his lifetime.
- William funded the trust with an intended $4 million investment in SafeTzone Technologies; six payments were made and the stock was later titled to the trust.
- Timothy allegedly breached fiduciary duties by investing trust assets in SafeTzone and making loans to Patrick, reducing the trust’s value after William’s death in 2005.
- Four children sued Timothy for breach of fiduciary duties; the trial court ruled for plaintiffs and the Court of Appeal held plaintiffs lacked standing; this court grants review to resolve standing after the settlor’s death.
- The dispositive question is whether beneficiaries have standing to sue for breaches of a fiduciary duty owed to the settlor during the revocable period once the settlor dies, thereby making the trust irrevocable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether beneficiaries have standing to sue for breaches of duty owed to the settlor after death | Beneficiaries have standing under Probate Code provisions (15800, 16420, 17200) to pursue harms to their interests after the settlor dies. | Duties during revocability ran solely to the settlor; no standing accrues to beneficiaries for acts occurring before death; remedies should be pursued by the personal representative. | Yes; beneficiaries have standing after the settlor’s death to sue for breaches of duty owed to the settlor that harmed beneficiaries. |
| Role of the personal representative vs. beneficiaries in curing or pursuing claims | Beneficiaries should be able to sue directly to protect their contingent interests after death. | Only the decedent’s personal representative may sue; beneficiaries’ interests are not aligned with the decedent’s during revocation; CCP 377.30 is not exclusive. | Beneficiaries may sue directly; CCP 377.30 is not exclusive when Trust Probate Code provisions permit beneficiary action. |
| Impact of other remedies on standing to sue for pre-death breaches | Other remedies (elder abuse, conservatorship, personal representative actions) do not foreclose beneficiary standing. | Existence of other remedies might preclude independent beneficiary actions or create conflicts; the standing question is separate from remedies. | The existence of other remedies does not extinguish beneficiary standing to pursue pre-death breaches after the settlor dies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evangelho v. Presoto, 67 Cal.App.4th 615 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (standing to seek an accounting after settlor’s death for revocable trust breaches prior to death)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2009) (special nature of revocable trusts; rights of revocable-trust beneficiaries post-death)
- Johnson v. Kotyck, 76 Cal.App.4th 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (trustee’s duties to settlor during revocable period; conservator context; effects on beneficiaries after death)
- Estate of Bowles, 169 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (trust beneficiary standing to sue trustee for breach of trust)