Miller v. Bank of America, 352 P.3d 1162

In 2007, two Miller trusts’ beneficiaries sued Bank of America (Bank) as trustee for breaches of the duty of care and loyalty under NM Uniform Trust Code.
Beneficiaries alleged improper self-dealing: Bank invested trust assets in an unproductive building and arranged affiliate loans secured by the building.
The district court found multiple breaches and awarded disgorgement of profits ($540,000) and restoration of $894,000 for lost trust value.
The Court of Appeals reversed parts of the restoration ruling, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the remedies question.
The Supreme Court held that restoration and disgorgement are separate, may both apply, and remanded to determine whether mortgage interest and loan fees were included in the restoration calculation.
The decision centers on NM Uniform Trust Code provisions: 46A-8-802, 46A-10-1003(A), and 46A-10-1002(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the NM Uniform Trust Code requires disgorgement of personal profits.	Beneficiaries: trustee must disgorge personal profits.	Bank: Code provides alternative/remedial options; need not always disgorge.	Disgorgement of personal profit required under the Code.
Whether restoration and disgorgement can both be awarded for a trustee’s misconduct.	Beneficiaries demand both remedies to fully compensate and deter.	Bank argues potential double recovery; dispute over interplay.	Both restoration and disgorgement may be awarded; remand to reconcile calculations.
Whether mortgage interest and loan fees were included in the restoration calculation.	Inclusion would affect whether additional disgorgement is needed.	If included, restoration may suffice; otherwise disgorgement needed.	Remand to determine if these items were included in the restoration measure.
Whether the district court properly allocated the $894,000 restoration without double counting the $540,000 disgorgement.	Restoration and disgorgement represent distinct harms; both necessary.	Potential double counting if overlapping.	Remand necessary to clarify whether restoration included disgorgement figures.

Magruder v. Drury, 235 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1914) (no-further-inquiry rule against trustee profit; self-dealing prohibited)
Iriart v. Johnson, 411 P.2d 226 (N.M. 1965) (beneficiary entitled to profits from self-dealing; not limited to rescission)
Bogle v. Bogle, 188 P.2d 181 (N.M. 1947) (no-further-inquiry rule; trustee profit accountability)
Peters Corp. v. N.M. Banquest Investors Corp., 188 P.3d 1185 (N.M. 2008) (disgorgement as equitable remedy; discretionary grounded in law)