Robert T. McLean Irrevocable Trust u/a/d March 31, 1999

418 S.W.3d 482 (2013)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Robert T. McLean Irrevocable Trust u/a/d March 31, 1999

Missouri Court of Appeals
418 S.W.3d 482 (2013)

Facts

Robert McLean was involved in an automobile accident that left him a quadriplegic and pursued a related product-liability action. He received a large sum of money that was placed into a trust (plaintiff). The trust named a trustor, trustees, and a trust protector who acted in a fiduciary capacity and was tasked with removing trustees, appointing successor trustees, and appointing successor trust protectors. J. Michael Ponder (defendant), McLean’s counsel in the product-liability action, was named trust protector, but the trust did not give him any powers or duties to supervise the trustees. The trust did outline the trustees’ powers, rights, and duties. Several times, Ponder appointed successor trustees when the original trustees resigned. The trust brought suit against all successor trustees and trust protectors, including Ponder, claiming that Ponder had breached his fiduciary duty to McLean and had acted in bad faith by failing to monitor expenditures, failing to stop trustees from acting against McLean’s interests, and placing his loyalty to the trustees and their interests ahead of McLean’s. McLean and his attorney made Ponder aware that trustees were spending money inappropriately and depleting trust assets, but McLean and his attorney claimed he took no action. The trial court granted Ponder’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and the trust appealed. The court found that the trust stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and that genuine issues of material fact existed and remanded to the trial court. The case was tried to a jury, and there was expert testimony that Ponder should have removed the trustees in December 1999. There was also testimony that the depletion of assets occurred in the last quarter of 1999, which was prior to Ponder’s being notified that the trustees needed to be removed. The trial court granted Ponder’s motion for a directed verdict. The trust appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Francis, C.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 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership