In re George Parsons 1907 Trust
170 A.3d 215
| Me. | 2017Background
- George Parsons created the George Parsons 1907 Trust; it terminates 21 years after death of the last named life, which occurred in 2002 (termination in 2023).
- Philippa Wistrand (a trust beneficiary) died in 1990; her biological son Thomas Maxwell was born out of wedlock in 1963 and later adopted by Philippa’s sister Sylvie.
- Sylvie assigned whatever interest she had in Philippa’s share to Maxwell in 1990 and trustees began paying income to Maxwell.
- In 1994 the Probate Court held adopted children are not beneficiaries under the Trust; in 1996 trustees passed a resolution formally recognizing Maxwell as Philippa’s biological son and a beneficiary, and distributions continued.
- Gourevitch (a descendant and former trustee) sued in 2014 seeking a declaration that Maxwell is not a beneficiary (arguing nonmarital status and adoption barred him); Probate Court initially granted Maxwell summary judgment on statute of limitations but later amended to grant judgment to Gourevitch based on Tibble; Supreme Judicial Court reversed and vacated, holding Gourevitch’s claim time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gourevitch) | Defendant's Argument (Maxwell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did a trust‑breach cause of action accrue for challenging beneficiary status? | Each wrongful distribution is a new breach, so accrual occurs with each payment (claim timely). | Accrual occurred no later than 1996 when trustees formally recognized Maxwell as beneficiary (claim time‑barred). | Accrued in 1996 at latest; claim barred by 6‑year statute. |
| Does a trustee owe a continuing duty to verify beneficiary status that restarts the limitations period with each distribution? | Yes — fiduciary duties are ongoing; each improper payment causes a new injury. | No — trustee’s duty to determine beneficiaries is discrete when made; distributions pursuant to that determination do not reset accrual. | No continuing duty to monitor beneficiary status for accrual purposes; distributions do not reset limitations absent other breaches. |
| Is Gourevitch entitled to equitable tolling or discovery‑rule tolling? | Tolling not applicable; but argued continuing breach would make suit timely. | Tolling not available because Gourevitch had ability and reason to discover the claim while trustee. | No tolling — Gourevitch served as trustee (1999–2002) and had opportunity to discover; discovery rule inapplicable. |
| Whether Maxwell is, on the merits, a beneficiary under Trust language ("issue"/"descendants")? | Argued nonmarital child should not be a beneficiary under 1907 common law construction. | Argued Trust language and statutes could support inclusion; factual/intent questions exist. | Court did not decide merits because statute of limitations barred claim; remanded to vacate Gourevitch's judgment and grant Maxwell summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 135 S. Ct. 1823 (U.S. 2015) (trust law recognizes continuing duty to monitor investments; accrual may be tied to continuing breaches)
- Renz v. Beeman, 589 F.2d 735 (2d Cir. 1978) (statute of limitations for trust breach measured from time of breach)
- Getty v. Getty, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (long‑continued proportional distributions can bar a beneficiary’s late challenge)
- Me. Mun. Emps. Health Tr. v. Maloney, 846 A.2d 336 (Me. 2004) (statute of limitations accrued at discrete event; periodic payments did not restart accrual in unjust enrichment context)
- McLaughlin v. Superintending Sch. Comm. of Lincolnville, 832 A.2d 782 (Me. 2003) (discussion of continuing tort doctrine and accrual principles)