128971
Kan. Ct. App.Jul 24, 2026Background
- Max and Janice Hacker created revocable inter vivos trusts in 2018 for estate planning, including a provision that the remainder of Max's trust would fund a Family Trust for Terena and Timothy after Max's death. 1
- Before Max died, the couple consolidated most investments into Max's trust, and in 2019 Janice transferred Max trust real estate to her own trust without compensating Max's trust. 2
- After Max died, Janice did not formally open a separate Family Trust and instead administered the assets under Max's trust while claiming the Family Trust existed only for tax administration. 3
- Terena sued Janice in 2022 for breach of trust, fiduciary duty, conversion, embezzlement, and accounting failures, and the district court granted Janice summary judgment on limitations, standing, and merits grounds. 4
- The district court also awarded Janice attorney fees from the trust and imposed personal sanctions on Terena for discovery misconduct, but Terena paid the sanctions while appealing. 5
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the Trust Code limitations period applied but was not triggered, the Family Trust arose at Max's death, and material fact issues precluded summary judgment on the real-estate transfer. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable limitations period for trust claims 7 | Terena said Trust Code § 58a-1005, not Chapter 60, governed. | Janice said tort limitations barred the claims. | Trust Code governs breach-of-trust claims. 8 |
| Whether § 58a-1005(c)(2) barred suit 9 | Terena said her interest was never terminated. | Janice said transfer of assets and failure to fund Family Trust ended beneficiary interests in 2019. | No; beneficiary interests were not terminated, so limitations did not run. 10 |
| Standing as Family Trust beneficiary 11 | Terena said the Family Trust existed at Max's death and gave her enforceable rights. | Janice said no Family Trust existed because no property was formally transferred. | Terena had standing; the Family Trust arose automatically at Max's death. 12 |
| Authority to transfer real estate to Janice's trust 13 | Terena said the trust did not authorize transfer of real property as 'tangible, nonbusiness' property. | Janice said the trust authorized the transfer and equalization of assets. | Trust language was ambiguous; summary judgment on authority was improper. 14 |
| Attorney fees and sanctions 15 | Terena challenged fees from the trust and sanctions against her. | Janice said fees and sanctions were authorized and reasonable. | Sanctions issue not considered after payment; fee award reversed for reconsideration on remand. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 320 Kan. 691 (Kan. 2025) (summary judgment requires resolving reasonable inferences for the nonmoving party 17)
- Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515, 311 Kan. 723 (Kan. 2020) (summary judgment review is unlimited on appeal 18)
- Miller v. Miller, -- (Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished trust-limitations decision discussing termination of beneficiary interests 19)
- Stechschulte v. Jennings, 297 Kan. 2 (Kan. 2013) (standing requires injury and causal connection 20)
- POM of Kansas, LLC v. Kobach, 319 Kan. 764 (Kan. 2024) (standing elements in Kansas 21)
- Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 260 Kan. 573 (Kan. 1996) (Kansas trust-creation elements and no need for formal title transfer in some trusts 22)
- Godley v. Valley View State Bank, 277 Kan. 736 (Kan. 2004) (absence of trustee acceptance/handling does not invalidate a trust under Kansas law 23)
- Hemphill v. Shore, 295 Kan. 1110 (Kan. 2012) (written trust interpretation is reviewed de novo and aims to effect settlor intent 24)
- LCL, LLC v. Falen, 308 Kan. 573 (Kan. 2018) (constructive notice from a deed does not automatically establish knowledge of an actionable injury 25)
- Culliss v. Culliss Trust, 62 Kan. App. 2d 293 (Kan. App. 2022) (fees are reasonable when litigation benefits the trust estate 26)