Rollins v. Rollins, 294 Ga. 711

O. Wayne Rollins created ten irrevocable trusts for grandchildren: the Rollins Children’s Trust (RCT) and nine Subchapter S-trusts; Gary and Randall Rollins and Henry Tippie served as trustees of RCT.
RCT funded initially with Rollins, Inc. stock; beneficiaries receive statements of trust condition at most every six months.
The settlor formed family entities to hold RCT assets: ROL, Inc.; LOR, Inc.; Rollins Grandchildren’s Partnership (RGP); Rollins Holding Company (RHC).
The Subchapter S-trusts, created in 1986, initially held LOR interests; in 1988 the entity RIF was placed within the S-trusts; Gary is sole trustee of the S-trusts but Gary and Randall share voting control of the family entities.
The S-trusts require all trust income to be distributed annually but do not address accountings; in 2010 four beneficiaries sued for breach of trust and requested an accounting of the family entities; the trial court granted summary judgment to trustees; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, prompting certiorari.
The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, directing the Court of Appeals to reweigh the trial court’s discretionary accounting decision and to apply a corporate fiduciary standard (with the 2010 amendment OCGA § 53-12-246(b) supporting dual roles under fair to beneficiaries).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accounting of family entities within the trusts	Rollins argued for an accounting under OCGA 53-12-243	Rollins contends trial court discretion should govern accounting decisions	Remanded; trial court’s discretion to require or excuse accounting must be weighed on remand
Fiduciary standard for trustees’ management of corporate family entities	Rollins sought heightened trustee-level scrutiny	Appellate court’s standard should apply given control and structure	Held to apply corporate-level fiduciary standard when trustees manage minority-interest corporate entities; remanded to apply standard on remand

In re Murray’s Will, 88 NYS2d 579 (N.Y.S. Ct. 1949) (trustee must render full accounting of transactions including corporate management)
In re Estate of Barrett, 6 NYS2d 689 (N.Y.Sur. Ct. 1938) (court will direct fiduciary to provide information in control bearing on estate)
In re Estate of Witkind, 4 NYS2d 933 (N.Y.Sur. Ct. 1938) (courts should consider appropriateness of reporting corporate transactions in which estate is interested)
Hanson v. First State Bank & Trust Co., 259 Ga. 710 (1989) (trustee duties regard to corporate assets influenced by precedent; informs fiduciary standard framework in Georgia)
In re Estate of Schnur, 242 N.Y.S.2d 126 (N.Y.Sur.Ct. 1963) (trustees’ corporate conduct often falls between corporate law and trust administration; context-dependent)
In re Estate of Carlisle, 278 N.Y.S.2d 1011 (N.Y.Sur.Ct. 1967) (where trust asset is minority interest, court defers to corporate governance unless actions harm asset)
Rosencrans v. Fry, 91 A2d 162 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1952) (trustee-director with minority interests not required to favor beneficiaries over corporate interests)
In re Scuderi, 667 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y.App.Div. 1998) (illustrative of heightened scrutiny of fiduciaries in some contexts)
In re Shehan’s Will, 141 N.Y.S.2d 439 (N.Y.App.Div. 1955) (example of fiduciary duties in testamentary contexts)