Corcoran Trusts, In re
| Decision Date | 08 December 1955 |
| Citation | 282 A.2d 653 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Helena S. CORCORAN TRUSTS created under Trust Agreements dated |
| Court | Court of Chancery of Delaware |
S. Samuel Arsht, and Thomas D. Henderer, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, and A. Chauncey Newlin, of White & Case, New York City, for petitioner Bankers Trust Co., sole successor trustee.
Rodman L. Ward, Jr., of Prickett, Ward, Burt & Sanders, Wilmington, guardian ad litem.
Robert P. Raskob, objectant, pro se.
William S. Potter and Charles S. Crompton, Jr., of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, for objectant Mary Louise Duffy.
MARVEL, Vice Chancellor:
On March 25, 1971, Bankers Trust Company, a banking corporation of the State of New York, sole successor trustee of the above trusts, in an ex parte application sought leave to account in this Court on behalf of itself and all predecessor trustees concerning their respective acts in the administration of three inter vivos trusts established by the late Helena S. Corcoran on the dates hereinafter indicated. It appears that prior to the filing of such petition, requests for the submission of accountings had been made to the successor trustee by certain of the life beneficiaries of such trusts, however, no request was made for a judicial accounting or settlement, which I am satisfied was primarily desired by the trustee for its own protection. Next, I am satisfied that the successor trustee's ultimate decision to seek a judicial settlement in Delaware was reached on its counsel's suggestion in order to avoid the anticipated greater expense which the same type of settlement might have involved in the State of New York, petitioner's domicile.
Anticipating the granting of leave to file such accounts, petitioner went on to pray for approval by this Court of the actions of the several trustees from the time of the setting-up of such trusts in question to the closing dates of the submitted accounts. Also sought was Court approval of the manner in which the trust funds in question are invested.
Finally, petitioner prayed that the order to be entered provide for the:
'* * * releasing and discharging the present and all predecessor Trustees from all liability with respect to the 1955, 1957 and 1959 trusts from the inception of the respective trusts to the respective closing dates of the accounts therefor.'
On the same date, namely March 25, 1971, a hearing was scheduled on Bankers Trust's petition and attached accounts, at which hearing all parties in interest were to have an opportunity to be heard. A guardian ad litem was accordingly appointed for '* * * all minor, unborn, incapacitated, contingent and unascertained beneficiaries of the aforesaid trusts * * *', and written notice of the scheduled hearing was ordered to be mailed to each adult beneficiary of the several trusts here involved together with copies of the petition herein with its attached accountings.
Several postponements of the scheduled hearing were thereafter granted with the consent of the petitioner in order to permit a full opportunity on the part of the life beneficiaries and the guardian ad litem to examine and test the accounts furnished them. And as a result of conferences between the interested parties during this period several adjustments in petitioner's accounts were worked out by counsel of record, leading to the withdrawal of several exceptions to the accounts in question. Such hearing was ultimately held on July 7, 1971, and the Court having found that it had jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for, the accounts submitted by petitioner were generally approved, action being reserved solely on an exception taken by an adult trust beneficiary. An order to such effect was entered on July 8, 1971, which also provided:
Such second hearing was held as scheduled, at which the exception of the adult beneficiary, Robert P. Raskob, was overruled and a fee was granted without objection to the guardian ad litem and his New York counsel. Thus, the sole matter remaining to be decided in the case is the application of the attorneys for the petitioner for '* * * allowance of fees for their services performed and expenses incurred as attorneys for the Trustees of three Inter vivos trusts created by Helena S. Corcoran in connection with the judicial settlement in this action of the accountings made on behalf of the present and former Trustees of those Trusts'.
None of the trusts here involved contains a provision to the effect that the accounts of the trustees must be judicially settled. In fact, Article Ninth of the 1955 Trust, Article Eleventh of the 1957 Trust, and Article Tenth of the 1959 Trust all contain an almost identical expression of intent by the donor to the effect that in order to avoid the expense and delay incident to a judicial settlement of his or its account, any trustee acting at any time under the provisions of such trusts might, from time to time, account to her. However, each of the above articles ends with a clause to the effect that the foregoing provisions shall not preclude a trustee from having his or its accounts judicially settled if he or it shall so desire.
The successor trustee so desired, and as a result of the judicial settlement sought and granted not only it but its predecessor trustees have been exculpated, 1 at least at this level, from any sort of responsibility for their handling of trust affairs up to the dates of such accountings although Title 12, Del.C. § 3521 requires that trustee accounts be filed only by trustees appointed by the Court and by testamentary trustees, and the approval of such accounts under Rule 129 is of a ministerial nature.
Petitioner points out in support of its application that Article...
To continue reading
Request your trial