Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilityprobatetrustgood faithbad faith
liabilityprobatetrustgood faithbad faith

Related Cases

Kerper v. Kerper, 780 P.2d 923
View Case »
New England Trust Co. v. Sanger, 337 Mass. 342, 149 N.E.2d 598
View Case »
In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 N.J.Super. 64, 47 A.3d 12
View Case »
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Clyde, 143 Conn. 247, 121 A.2d 625
View Case »
Staples v. King, 433 A.2d 407
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dill v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 343 Mass. 97, 175 N.E.2d 911

Facts

The case centers around a trust fund established by Joshua Dill in 1927, which included provisions for the distribution of income and principal to his children and their descendants. After consulting with counsel, the trustee distributed part of the principal to Janet Dill Morton without filing a petition for instructions. The petitioners argued that this distribution was premature and sought to have the funds restored to the trust.

The case centers around a trust fund established by Joshua Dill in 1927, which included provisions for the distribution of income and principal to his children and their descendants.

Issue

Was the trustee liable for the alleged improper distribution of principal to the beneficiary, Janet Dill Morton?

Was the trustee liable for the alleged improper distribution of principal to the beneficiary, Janet Dill Morton?

Rule

The trustee is entitled to rely on the advice of counsel regarding questions arising under the trust indenture and is not liable for actions taken in good faith based on that advice, unless there is evidence of bad faith or intentional misconduct.

The trustee is entitled to rely on the advice of counsel regarding questions arising under the trust indenture and is not liable for actions taken in good faith based on that advice, unless there is evidence of bad faith or intentional misconduct.

Analysis

The court found that the trustee acted in accordance with the advice of counsel, which was sought and obtained with reasonable care. The trust indenture explicitly allowed the trustee to rely on counsel's opinion, and there was no evidence suggesting that the trustee acted in bad faith or failed to exercise due diligence. Therefore, even if the distribution was improper, the trustee was protected by the exculpatory provision in the trust document.

The court found that the trustee acted in accordance with the advice of counsel, which was sought and obtained with reasonable care.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate Court's decree, concluding that the trustee need not restore any funds to the trust, as it acted in good faith based on the advice of counsel.

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate Court's decree, concluding that the trustee need not restore any funds to the trust, as it acted in good faith based on the advice of counsel.

Who won?

The trustee prevailed in the case because the court found that it acted in good faith and relied on competent legal advice, which protected it from liability for the distribution.

The trustee prevailed in the case because the court found that it acted in good faith and relied on competent legal advice, which protected it from liability for the distribution.

You must be