Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

In re Estate of Janes

Court of Appeals of New York
90 N.Y.2d 41, 681 N.E.2d 332, 659 N.Y.S.2d 165 (1997)



Rodney B. James’ will left most his $3.5 million estate, including a $2.5 million stock portfolio mostly comprised of Eastman Kodak Company stock, to three trusts. Two of these trusts, containing seventy-five percent of the estate together, paid the income to Rodney’s seventy-two year old wife, Cynthia W. Janes (plaintiff) during her lifetime. Following Rodney’s death in May 1973, officers of the trustee company (Trustee) (defendant) met with Cynthia to suggest selling some of the Kodak stock in order to pay the administrative expenses and taxes of the estate and Cynthia agreed. At the time of this meeting, the Kodak shares were worth $139 per share for a total value of almost $1,840,000. However, the price of Kodak stock fell to $109 per share by the end of that year. Trustee continued to retain the Kodak stock and between 1973 and the filing of Trustee’s initial accounting in 1980, the Kodak shares fell to $47 per share, for a total value of approximately $530,000. Cynthia and the charitable beneficiaries (plaintiffs) filed objections when the Trustee requested judicial settlement of the account in 1981. The Surrogate’s Court found that Trustee’s retention of the Kodak stock and failure to diversify was imprudent and that the stock should have been sold in August 1973. The court calculated damages as the difference between the stock’s value at the time of trial and its value if sold and reinvested in August 1973. Trustee appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed imposition of the surcharge but reduced it by calculating damages as the difference between the value of the stock when it was sold and when it should have been sold. Trustee appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York asserting that retention of the Kodak stock was not an imprudent investment because it was a “blue chip” stock so no investment risk factors, such as the stock issuing company’s capital structure, management and historical profitability, were applicable to the Kodak stock.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Levine, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial