Wood v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
Ohio Court of Appeals
828 N.E.2d 1072 (2005)
John Wood II created a trust worth over $8 million and of which his wife, Dana Barth Wood (plaintiff) was a beneficiary. At the time of John’s death, the trust assets consisted of eighty-two percent Firstar stock and eighteen percent Cincinnati Financial stock. The trust named Star Bank, of which Firstar (defendant) was a successor-in-interest, as trustee and specifically allowed Firstar, to “retain any securities in the same form as when received, including shares of a corporate Trustee…, even though all of such securities are not of the class of investments a trustee may be permitted by law to make and to hold…” Firstar met with the beneficiaries shortly after John’s death and suggested a plan for liquidating stock to pay the debts and expenses of the estate that resulted in further concentration of Firstar stock. In early 1999, after the Firstar stock price had increased to $35 per share, Dana Barth and her financial advisors made non-written requests to Firstar to diversify the Firstar stock, but Firstar did not diversify. By mid-2000, Firstar’s stock price dropped to $16 per share, costing Dana Barth $771,099. Dana Barth commenced an action against Firstar claiming that it had a duty to diversify under Ohio’s version of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) absent special circumstances. Firstar claimed that the duty to diversify did not apply because the language of John’s trust authorized Firstar to retain the stock. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the requirements of the UPIA. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury that Firstar would be liable for breach of duty if it abused its discretion in not diversifying since the trust gave Firstar discretion to retain the stock despite the default rule requiring diversification. The court further instructed the jury that dishonesty or bad faith was required to find abuse of discretion, and since no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith was presented at trial, the jury returned a verdict for Firstar. Dana Barth appealed the trial court’s jury instructions.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Painter, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 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.
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 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.