.webp)
.png)
We will continue to examine Maryland’s law of trust administration through its myriad opinions in this area. There is a host of key legal principles which emerge from Maryland’s common law on trusts, and many opinions provide critical details on the mechanics of these principles. The law on the administration of trusts in Maryland is concerned with things such as the precise scope of fiduciary obligations, trustee compensation, third party dealings involving trustees, and so forth. Trusts are complex instruments, and the case law on trust administration adds up to a substantial number of instances.
In this post, we will identify and discuss a few of the essential cases on trust administration here in Maryland.
Noble v. Bruce (1998)
This is a foundational case in the law of trust administration: in 1998, the Maryland Supreme Court heard a case involving a beneficiary who attempted to sue the trust attorney. This beneficiary contended that the attorney had negligently drafted a will with various errors, and that these errors were an actionable case. But, the central question was whether such an action was barred by the “strict privity rule”: because the attorney in this case was not actually a genuine “party,” but merely a transactional player in the overall scheme of things, does the beneficiary truly have an actionable scenario? The court ultimately concluded that the strict privity rule prevented the action, and so now Marylanders know that drafting attorneys are generally not liable for unintended errors which happen in the normal course of conducting business.
Bennett v. Gentile (2024)
This is a case which we actually discussed in detail before. This case added another layer to the construction of the strict privity rule (otherwise known as “privity of contract”): in this situation, the testator hired an attorney to make certain revisions to a will, and those revisions would’ve benefitted a particular beneficiary. The attorney basically failed to properly make the changes as instructed by the testator, and so ultimately when the will was admitted it was accepted with these alterations which were not properly done. This beneficiary who was negatively affected tried to sue the attorney, arguing that the “third party beneficiary” exception applied in this scenario; if this exception applied, the beneficiary might overcome the strict privity rule. But, in the end, the court (Maryland Supreme Court) determined that the action was barred by the rule, as the exception didn’t apply and therefore the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
In the Matter of the Donald Edwin Williams Revocable Trust and the Individual Beneficiary Trust of Linda L. Slacum (2016)
This is also a case we have discussed in its own installment: essentially, this a case on the technical procedures of appellate review. In this scenario, a beneficiary (a charitable trust) attempted to sue the trustee after certain funding instructions within a will were allegedly neglected. The case presented multiple complex issues; one issue was whether judgment on a specific aspect of the matter (removal of the case) was appealable given that this issue was grouped together with other issues in the appeal. The trustee argued that this judgment was not yet appealable because other issues hadn’t been fully resolved. The appellate division ultimately sided with the trustee, holding that the judgment on the removal of the case was not appealable yet because of the current stage of the litigation.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you want to know more about trust administration in Maryland, or about the details on the strict privity rule, fiduciary obligations, repercussions for violations of fiduciary obligations, or any other related estate planning topic, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
