Vaughn v. Montague
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21484
W.D. Wash.2013Background
- Mary Vaughn created a revocable living trust naming Montague as successor trustee; Mary Vaughn died May 3, 2010; the dispute centers on the trust house in Bellevue, Washington and distributions to Vaughn; Vaughn alleges Montague mismanaged trust funds and breached distributions to him; Montague seeks to strike Wills declaration and moves for summary judgment on multiple claims; the court grants in part and denies in part Montague’s motion, and addresses Montague’s counterclaims with probate-exception considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of fiduciary duty by Montague | Vaughn says Montague abused discretion and deprived remainder | Montague acted within trust terms and discretionary powers | Granted summary judgment for Montague; no breach shown |
| Conversion of trust assets | Montague converted the home for own use | Trustee had discretion; no unlawful conversion | Granted summary judgment for Montague; no conversion under trust terms; statute of limitations also bars claim |
| Accounting claim | Demand for accounting; inadequate accounting provided | Extensive accounting already provided in discovery | Granted summary judgment for Montague; accounting moot since records supplied |
| Montague's counterclaims and probate jurisdiction | N/A (defendant moves on counterclaims) | Probate exception deprives federal court of probate-related relief | Denied summary judgment on counterclaims; counterclaims dismissed without prejudice due to probate exception; federal court lacks probate jurisdiction over estate matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. County of Maricopa, 706 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2013) (relevancy and reliability standard for expert testimony under Daubert)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (reliability and relevance of expert testimony; Daubert test)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting for movant)
- Cook v. Brateng, 262 P.3d 1228 (Wash. App. 2010) (trustee duties; informant duties to beneficiaries; routine administration)
- Casterline v. Roberts, 284 P.3d 743 (Wash. App. 2012) (trusts as will substitutes; probate exception context)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (U.S. 2006) (probate exception reservation to state courts for estate matters; limits federal jurisdiction)