Rose v. Waldrip
316 Ga. App. 812
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Waldrip died in 2008 leaving a Revocable Living Trust (2002) and a contemporaneous Comprehensive Transfer Document that purported to transfer all assets to the Trust.
- Linda and Joy are beneficiaries under Waldrip’s Will (2008) funding a separate Linda Trust and certain debts owed to Linda, creating competing trusts/wills dynamics.
- The Trust documents contain broad after-acquired property language stating assets acquired after execution would be held by the Trust even if titled in Waldrip’s name.
- Colleen, as administrator, sought a declaratory judgment to determine what remained in Waldrip’s estate in light of the after-acquired-property language.
- The trial court found Waldrip intended all property acquired after the Trust’s creation would become Trust property and that the after-acquired provisions were enforceable.
- On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed part of the trial court, holding the after-acquired language alone cannot transfer post-execution assets prior to the Revised Georgia Trust Code and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are after-acquired property clauses enforceable to vest post-execution assets in the Trust? | Colleen: clauses transfer all post-execution assets to Trust. | Linda/Joy: enforcement requires formal transfer; retroactive law may limit rights. | Clauses alone are insufficient to transfer post-execution assets; remand. |
| Whether pre-Revised Code law required formal transfer of trust property and the retroactivity of the 2010 revisions. | Colleen rights vested; Revised Code should not retroactively affect them. | New statute imposes transfer formalities; retroactive application could impair rights. | Apply pre-Revised law; Revised Code not retroactive to impair vested rights. |
| Whether a trust declaration naming the settlor as trustee suffices to transfer after-acquired property before the Revised Code. | Declaration alone transfers property to the trust. | Prior law does not require formal transfer for after-acquired assets. | Restatement-based authority supports that declaration alone may transfer initial property, but post-execution after-acquired assets require additional manifestation; thus after-acquired property cannot be pulled into the Trust by language alone. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. Ladd, 323 SW3d 772 (Ky. App. 2010) (declaration by owner as trustee may create a trust without title transfer)
- Brinson v. Martin, 220 Ga. App. 638 (Ga. App. 1996) (trust documents and intent govern; presumption of knowledge of contents)
- Woodruff v. Trust Co. of Ga., 233 Ga. 135 (Ga. 1974) (vested rights; retroactivity concerns)
- Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Ga. Bd. of Nat. Resources, 266 Ga. 253 (Ga. 1996) (vested rights; retroactivity considerations)
- Tadlock v. Tadlock, 290 Ga. App. 568 (Ga. App. 2008) (trust terminology and intent; reliance on language)
- Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879 (Ga. App. 2009) (contract-like interpretation of trust terms)