Van Gundy v. Van Gundy
Colorado Court of Appeals
292 P.3d 1201 (2012)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Eldon Van Gundy (plaintiff) created an irrevocable trust, designating himself as the beneficiary and his son, Quinton Van Gundy (defendant), trustee. Section 8(d) of the trust authorized the trustee to invest trust assets “whether or not such investments be of the character permissible for investments by fiduciaries under any applicable law, and without regard to the . . . diversity of the investments.” Quinton invested trust assets in: (1) common stocks, (2) mutual funds, (3) shares in Crystallex International Company, a Venezuelan gold-mining concern, and (4) stocks bought on margin. From 2008–2009, the value of trust assets plummeted, and Eldon instructed Quinton to liquidate. At the time, 32 percent of the trust assets were invested in a mutual fund. Quinton liquidated the assets, resulting in a $340,000 loss. Eldon sued Quinton in a Colorado court to quiet title and for breaches of contract, fiduciary duty, and the duty to provide a complete accounting. After a bench trial, the court found Quinton liable for breach of contract on the ground that his purchases on margin and failure to diversify violated the prudent investor rule. Quinton was also held liable for the Crystallex investment. Quinton appealed the decisions regarding his purchases on margin and diversification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.