From our private database of 30,500+ case briefs...
In re Estate of Giraldin
California Supreme Court
290 P.3d 199 (2012)
Facts
William Giraldin created a revocable inter vivos trust and made himself the sole income beneficiary during his life. After William and his wife both died, the trust’s remaining assets would be distributed equally among each of their nine children. William’s two youngest children, Timothy and Patrick Giraldin (defendants), were twins. William appointed Timothy as the trustee. William spent most of his life savings, over $4 million, to buy stock in a company owned by Timothy and Patrick and gave the stock to the trust. However, the company did not perform well, and the trust’s stock became worthless. In addition, while William was still alive, Timothy spent almost $1 million of the trust’s remaining funds making disbursements and loans to himself and Patrick. After William died, four of William’s other children (plaintiffs) sued Timothy for mismanaging their father’s trust. The trial court found that Timothy had breached his duties as trustee and charged him with returning almost $5 million to the trust. Timothy appealed. The court of appeal found that Timothy had not owed any duty to the trust beneficiaries while William was alive and, therefore, that the beneficiaries lacked standing to pursue a claim for any breaches that occurred during that time period. The trust beneficiaries sought review from the California Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
