Matter of Anne Hamilton Killian Trust

519 N.W.2d 409, 1994 Iowa App. LEXIS 45, 1994 WL 391134
CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
DecidedMay 26, 1994
Docket93-114
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 519 N.W.2d 409 (Matter of Anne Hamilton Killian Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Anne Hamilton Killian Trust, 519 N.W.2d 409, 1994 Iowa App. LEXIS 45, 1994 WL 391134 (iowactapp 1994).

Opinions

DONIELSON, Chief Judge.

In 1959, Anne Killian executed an inter vivos trust agreement, providing upon her death, if her husband were not living, the trust property then would be divided into equal and separate trusts for her two chil[411]*411dren, John Killian and Joan Killian Hunter. Joan had three children, Steele, Todd, and Scott. Under the residuary trust, Joan was to receive that portion of the income and principal as the trustees, in their sole discretion, determined was necessary for Joan’s health, education, and maintenance. Such distributions were to continue for a period of twenty-one years after the death of the last surviving of Joan and her son, Sanderson Steele Bartlett, at which time the trust would terminate and the accumulated income and undistributed principal would be paid to the then surviving descendants of Joan Hunter.

The powers given the trustees were wide ranging. They were given all powers conferred by law to carry out and administer the terms of the trust. The trustees were not to be held liable for any depreciation in the value of any investments made in good faith.

J. Richard Rossie became trustee in 1987, after being approached by Joan and her son, Todd Hunter. In 1988, Joan informed the trustee the house in which she was living was in terrible shape and needed to be totally rehabilitated. The home is in an exclusive suburb of Los Angeles and is on the ocean. Joan indicated the home was worth between two and three million dollars, but with renovations, it would be worth at least six million. She informed the trustee she could contract most of the work herself and cut the price of restoration in half. Joan requested funds from the trust for the project in the form of loans, rather than an outright distribution to her.

The trustee loaned Joan the money in fifteen separate loans, each evidenced by a demand note, totaling $553,003.41, with annual interest of ten percent. He determined these loans would be a good investment for the trust and might benefit Joan’s estate. Other loans in the amount of $350,000 had been made to Joan prior to 1987, but these loans had been forgiven. On August 24, 1992, a hearing was held regarding the trustee’s annual reports. Joan’s son, Todd Hunter, filed objections to these reports and filed separate resistances to each of the trustee’s applications for approval of attorney fees and expenses. The district court refused to approve the second, third, fourth, and fifth annual reports until such time as they were supplemented with a showing the loans made by the trust to Joan were secured. The district court approved each of the trustee’s applications for attorney fees and expenses. Pursuant to Todd’s rule 179(b) motion, the district court specified the manner in which the loans were to be secured. Todd appeals, and Rossie, as trustee, cross-appeals.

Appellant contends the loans eventually will dry up the trust, since the amount of interest on the trust would not be sufficient to pay even the interest due from Joan’s loans. He also argues the annual reports do not indicate in detail how the loan proceeds were used to improve the property. Appellant also asserts the trustee does not know the value of the house. He further asserts the district court’s requirement the trustee show a mortgage encumbering the real estate in the amount of the loans is a start, but there is still nothing to require an independent determination whether the loans to Joan represent a sound investment of trust assets. Appellant notes the mortgages would only provide security for repayment of the loans. He further argues the trustee failed to take into consideration Joan’s other assets when determining the propriety of giving her the loans. Appellant insists the trustee’s actions violate the prudent person investment rule as set forth in Iowa code section 633.123 (1991). Finally appellant claims the district court erred in approving the various applications for attorney fees and expenses submitted by the trustee.

Rossie, as trustee, cross-appeals, arguing the district court did not have authority to require him to secure the loans the trust made to Joan. He claims any assertions regarding breach of fiduciary duty must be brought directly against him, rather than collaterally raised in proceedings relating to annual reports.

With certain exceptions, proceedings in probate court are in equity. Iowa Code § 633.33 (1993). Since this case does not fall within the exceptions, it was tried in equity and our review is de novo. Iowa R.App. P. 4; In re Estate of Johnson, 387 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa 1986). We give weight to the fact findings of the district court, especially when [412]*412considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App. P. 14(f)(7).

Initially we consider the trustee’s arguments (1) this action was not the appropriate means by which to challenge his exercise of discretion as a fiduciary, and (2) the court was without authority to order the loans be secured before approving the trustee’s annual reports. He argues Iowa Code section 633.157 requires actions be brought directly against him instead of through an attack on the annual reports. This section states in part:

Every fiduciary shall be hable for, and chargeable in the fiduciary’s accounts with, all of the estate that comes into the fiduciary’s possession at any time, ...

Id. While this section allows recovery from the trustee for property of the estate, this action does not seek recovery of estate property. It merely seeks to have loans made by the trustee secured, to protect the corpus of the trust. We agree with the trustee an action against him directly, seeking to compel him to secure the loans, might be appropriate. We do not agree, however, this action is inappropriate, especially since the relief sought relates to an accounting of the trustee’s handling of the trust assets.

Nor can we agree the district court, sitting in probate, was without authority to order the trustee to secure the loans before accepting the annual reports. The court has broad powers in equity to fashion appropriate relief. “Hence, if we find a situation that is contrary to equitable principles and can be redressed within the scope of judicial action, we may devise a remedy to meet it, though no similar relief has ever been given. Becker v. Central States Health & Life, 431 N.W.2d 354, 356 (Iowa 1988); Moser v. Thorp Sales Corp., 256 N.W.2d 900, 907 (Iowa 1977). Todd Hunter is one of the beneficiaries of the trust for his mother, Joan. • He stands to receive a portion of the trust remaining after her death. His interest potentially was affected by the trustee’s decision to make the unsecured loans. The remedy fashioned by the district court falls within its broad equitable powers.

We next consider appellant’s assertion the district court did not go far enough in requiring the trustee to secure the loans before approving the annual reports. Iowa Code section 633.700 states:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Anne Hamilton Killian Trust
519 N.W.2d 409 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
519 N.W.2d 409, 1994 Iowa App. LEXIS 45, 1994 WL 391134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-anne-hamilton-killian-trust-iowactapp-1994.