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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT