Chatard v. Oveross (California Courts of Appeal, Nov. 30, 2009).
Holding that the beneficiaries of a trust were entitled to charge the share in the trust of another beneficiary who was also the trustee where the beneficiary/trustee was found liable for breach of her trustee duties, and that a spendthrift clause in the trust, stating that the interest of a beneficiary in the trust could not be subject to that beneficiary's creditors, did not prohibit the surcharge where the trust did not contain language that indicated that the trustors would have wanted to insulate the beneficiary/trustee's share in the trust if she breached her trustee duties.
Regards,
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and Beyond)
http://davidtate.us
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davetateesq
http://twitter.com/DavidTateEsq
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Covering news relating to legal developments; directors and officers; audit committees; governance, risk and compliance; accountants; accountability; California trust, estate and elder updates; and assorted related business and social issues. Please tell friends and colleagues.
About Me
- David Tate, Esq.
- San Francisco, California (and beyond)
- http://davidtate.us (website)
Posts
This blog does not provide legal or other professional advice, and is not a solicitation for services. This blog does not pertain to any particular person, entity or event. The materials in this blog summarize complicated topics. You should seek professional help if you need legal or other assistance for your situation. You cannot rely on the contents of this blog for your circumstances.