Subscribe in NewsGator Online   Subscribe in Bloglines  

Settlors' Advisory

The rise of fiduciary litigation in recent years (combined with ever-increasing attorneys' fees) has prompted some to search for an alternative to a traditional judicial dispute. Arbitration may provide an effective, less costly mechanism for resolving disputes but, as indicated by a recent decision from a DC appellate court, certain steps must be taken to ensure its availability to litigants.

In re Calomiris involved a dispute between four co-trustees (all siblings). George Calomiris wanted to remove his three co-trustees, and they wanted to remove him, hence cross-claims for removal were filed in a lower court. George then filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims should be dismissed because a provision in the governing will directed that any material difference of opinion among the trustees must be resolved by arbitration. The lower court denied this motion, concluding that the trust at issue did not vest an arbitrator with the power to remove trustees. George appealed, and his siblings filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for jurisdictional defects.

The appellate court noted that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not ordinarily an appealable order, but courts treat a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the underlying document required arbitration as a motion to compel arbitration. Ironically, therefore, the court had to touch upon the underlying merits of the dispute to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court ultimately held that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying document was not a contract binding the parties to arbitration.

The court stated that arbitration rests on a voluntary, contractual exchange of promises and relied heavily on a 2004 Arizona state court ruling in Schoneberger v. Oelze, 96 P.3d 1078. Schoneberger held that a trust provision mandating arbitration does not rise to the level of a contract because an "undertaking" between a settlor and trustee "does not stem from the premise of mutual assent to an exchange of promises." Ibid. at 1083.

The Calomiris court noted that the case at bar differed from Schoneberger in that the arbitration provision was contained in a will rather than a trust, but found this difference was immaterial because a will is not a contract either.

The net result of Calomiris and Schoneberger is that settlors seeking to mandate arbitration to settle disputes among trustees or beneficiaries must take additional steps to bring the potential litigants under the umbrella of contract law. The most obvious mechanism would be an arbitration clause.

Clients may find it appealing to add an arbitration agreement to their estate plans and require legatees to enter into it as a condition of receiving their bequests. However, counsel should make clear that this approach is largely untested and that a court might find a "forced to arbitrate" clause void as against public policy for its chilling effect on a beneficiary's right to access the courts. On the other hand, judges might find arbitration clauses a terrific way to keep feuding family members from wasting the court's time.

To subscribe, click here.


Acceptable Use Policy
blog comments powered by Disqus

Wealth Watch E-Letter Subscribe

Fate of Famed Art Collection Unresolved

Tennessee Chancery Court temporarily blocks the sale by financially strapped college of a 50 percent interest to a Walmart heiress’ new museum...

The Shifting Sands of the Tax Burden

A U.S. Court of Appeals ruling underscores the importance of paying attention to the tax implications of selling or transferring property before a testator’s death...

View Past Wealth Watch E-letters...

Tech E-Letter Subscribe

Gsphere

Comprehensive analysis of investment diversification...

VestingPoint.com’s Retirement Calculator

Evaluate retirement projections with this online tool...

View Past Technology Review Newsletters

Past Issues

  • August Issue
  • July Issue
  • June Issue
  • May Issue
  • April Issue
  • March Issue
  • February Issue

Download The 2009 Findings from a Nationwide Survey of Estate Planning Attorneys

Podcasts

Advising the Wealthy: It's a Whole New Game

Charlie Ratner talks with estate-planning expert Lou Harrison, investment guru Michael Lewitt and retirement benefits specialist Mike Jones. Register for this timely podcast......

Webinars

Roth IRA Conversions - The Critical Issues

Whether you are a tax professional, estate planner or financial advisor, it is important that you are well-equipped to effectively advise clients regarding Roth IRA conversions. -
Available On Demand!...

Aligning Charitable Giving & Life Insurance

Best Practices, Planning Techniques, and Philanthropic Benefits. Tanya Howe Johnson, President & CEO of the PPP, Kelly Kidwell, President & CEO of Pacific Advisors and Chairman of the AALU Charitable Planning Committee, and Phil Cubeta, the Sallie B. and William B. Wallace Chair in Philanthropy at the American College. Available On Demand!...

Integrative Philanthropy

Times are tough - in fact, donors are more careful to integrate their philanthropy with their financial and estate planning. Robert F. Sharpe, Jr. and Marc D. Hoffman describe the current philanthropic/political landscape and review the techniques that donors of means are now increasingly using to optimize their giving.
Available On Demand!...