ILNews

COA: Bank didn't breach duties as trustee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although tempted to analyze with "the benefit of hindsight" a suit filed by beneficiaries of a trust against a bank that served as the trustee, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the bank after finding the bank acted in good faith.

The beneficiaries of a trust set up by their father, Chanell and Micaela Cochran, filed the suit In re: Matter of the Trust of Stuart Cochran Irrevocable Trust v. KeyBank, N.A., No. 71A04-0806-CV-3847, alleging KeyBank, as trustee, had breached its obligations and violated the prudent investor rule.

Stuart Cochran set up the trust in 1987 with his then-minor daughters as beneficiaries and received assistance from insurance advisor Art Roberson. KeyBank became successor trustee in 1999, just after Roberson had recommended the trust be replaced with two variable universal life policies. Stuart agreed to change his policy to a safer John Hancock one in 2003 with a fixed payout of around $2.5 million after his variable universal life policies continued to lose money in the stock market following Sept. 11, 2001. The previous policy was originally valued around $8 million before losses.

Stuart died unexpectedly shortly after the new policy was confirmed, leaving his daughters with only the $2 million in life insurance funds instead of the larger amount they could have had from the previous variable universal life policies. The daughters filed suit and the trial court ruled in favor of the bank.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the case under the Indiana Prudent Investor Act, which cautions that compliance with the act's rules should be made in light of the facts and circumstances at the time a trustee made a decision or action, not by hindsight. Now it is known that the stock market would rebound and the variable universal life policies would have been worth more than the John Hancock policy, wrote Chief Judge John Baker, and the appellate court can understand why the daughters wish that KeyBank had made a different decision. However, KeyBank acted in good faith in making the switch and had an independent outside insurance consultant review all the policies before making the decision.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed that under the Prudent Investor Act, KeyBank didn't improperly delegate certain decision-making functions to Roberson and Stuart, the bank didn't violate the PIA by disregarding the insurance consultant's recommendations regarding the variable universal life policies, and that the bank didn't violate the PIA for failing to investigate alternatives for other life insurance policies.

While the appellate court found KeyBank's decision-making process and communication with Stuart's daughters wasn't perfect, the trial court didn't err in finding it was sufficient.

"Although it is tempting to analyze these cases with the benefit of hindsight, we are not permitted to do so, nor should we. KeyBank chose between two viable, prudent options, and given the facts and circumstances it was faced with at that time, we do not find that its actions were imprudent, a breach of any relevant duties, or a cause of any damages to the (daughters)," wrote the chief judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT