159 So. 3d 1101
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Eleanor Pierce Stevens Living Trust appoints Preston as Trust Protector in 2006; Article XI B allows removal of a trustee by the Protector in sole discretion.
- Appellant Finley Hilliard resigns as trustee in 2009 conditioned on successor trustees being appointed and taking oath.
- In 2009, the court modified the Trust to permit Appellant’s withdrawal and Preston’s appointment as co-trustee; Preston took oath in 2009.
- Federal litigation arises from trust funds and actions by Appellant and E. Pierce Jr.; the government sought to recover unpaid gift taxes and trust funds allegedly misused.
- Appellant later seeks to withdraw his resignation and obtain authority to fund appeals and bonds from the Trust; the trial court and appellate panels address timeliness, scope of pleadings, and whether Preston had power to remove Appellant.
- The court ultimately dismisses the 2009 judgment appeal as untimely, affirms the 2013 removal ruling, and denies relief on the motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Preston, as Trust Protector, have authority to remove the trustee? | Appellant argues removal violates public policy and Trust Protector powers are undefined. | Trust instrument grants sole-discretion removal by Trust Protector with no public policy violation. | Trust Protector removal authority is valid and enforceable. |
| Was Appellant's 2009 resignation offer validly accepted in 2013 after revocation and delay? | Appellant revoked the offer; acceptance after years is improper. | Trust Protector could accept or act on the resignation under the instrument; time lapse irrelevant. | Preston’s acceptance/removal action is consistent with the Trust provisions. |
| Did the trial court properly allow expansion of pleadings to address removal of Appellant? | Expansion was outside the pleadings and prejudicial. | Pleadings encompassed issues regarding status of Appellant as trustee; expansion was proper. | No abuse of discretion; evidence properly related to the trustee status. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for new trial? | New trial grounds were met; there was error in proceedings and evidence. | No abuse; record supports the denial and grounds were not established. | No abuse; motion for new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard manifest error review for factual findings)
- Stobart v. State, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (appellate review of factual determinations for manifest error)
- Albritton v. Albritton, 622 So.2d 709 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993) (fiduciary duties of trustees; public policy considerations)
- In re James C. Atkinson Clifford Trust, 762 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (trust interpretation and settlor intent guides removal provisions)