Schultz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
301 P.3d 1237
Alaska2013Background
- The Dennis P. Hutchinson, Jr. Trust, with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as trustee since 1999, owns two residential properties and is managed under a trust agreement requiring annual meetings, statements, and insurance maintenance.
- Jean Schultz, guardian for the beneficiary, sits on a Trust Advisory Committee that sought information about the trust's insurance premiums and Wells Fargo's master insurance policy for several years.
- From 2005 to 2009, the Committee repeatedly demanded the master policy and related documents, alleging high premiums, lack of consent, and undisclosed relationships among entities in the insurance program.
- Wells Fargo offered to provide the master policy only in redacted form under a protective order, arguing the requests exceeded the scope of a trustee’s information duties and risked confidentiality and competitive harm.
- A probate master recommended limited production focusing on information reasonably required for fiduciary duties, and the superior court adopted that recommendation, denying full fees to either side.
- The Alaska Supreme Court subsequently reversed the superior court and remanded for renewed consideration of attorney’s fees, holding the Committee as prevailing party for Rule 82 purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court abused its discretion on prevailing party under Rule 82 | Committee prevailed on main relief and should be deemed prevailing party | Neither party clearly prevailed; relief was split | Abuse of discretion; Committee is prevailing party |
| Whether the Committee was the prevailing party based on relief obtained | Committee secured the master policy and substantial information | Relief was partial; not clearly prevailing | Committee prevailed on main issue and earned fee entitlement |
| Whether the case should be remanded for attorney’s fee calculation consistent with Rule 82 | Remand to determine appropriate fee recovery | No need to redefine prevailing party status | Remand for renewed consideration of attorney’s fees appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Progressive Corp. v. Peter ex rel Peter, 195 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2008) (prevailing party standard for fee awards; recovering some relief can suffice)
- Anthoney, 229 P.3d 164 (Alaska 2010) (abuse of discretion in prevailing party determinations)
- Taylor v. Moutrie-Pelham, 246 P.3d 927 (Alaska 2011) (considering main issues and not simply counting claims)
- Blumenshine v. Baptiste, 869 P.2d 470 (Alaska 1994) (abuse of discretion where plaintiff obtains affirmative recovery on main issue)
- Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. State, 940 P.2d 916 (Alaska 1997) (identify main issue and assess if trial court erred in prevailing party designation)