Case ID: ny_232/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marguerite B. Burke, Appellant, v. Charles A. Baudouine et al., Individually and as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Charles A. Baudouine, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
    
      Decedent’s estate — trustees — improper removal of trustees.
    
    
      Burke v. Baudouine, 190 App. Div. 186, affirmed.
    (Submitted October 24, 1921;
    decided November 22, 1921.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered April 3, 1920, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was brought to obtain the removal of the trustees under the will of Charles A. Baudouine, deceased. Removal was asked upon the ground that the trustees were “ unsuitable persons to execute the trust,” arising out of the facts that they were themselves the sole surviving life beneficiaries, and that their personal interests in the income from the fund,, as fife beneficiaries, conflicted with their duties as trustees; the insolvency and irresponsibility of the junior, (now sole surviving) trustee; hostility and bitterness of the junior trustee toward the plaintiff; inharmonious and unfriendly relations existing between vested remainder-men, and between vested remaindermen and the junior, and now, sole trustee and sole life beneficiary; and use by junior trustee of his infant children’s money for their support and maintenance. Plaintiff demanded the substitution of suitable trustees or a trust company, and an accounting incidental thereto. The Appellate Division held that “ The trustees have been removed in this case on the most flimsy evidence. There was absolutely nothing proved against their management of the estate. There was no evidence of any character produced against Charles A. Baudouine. Nevertheless, the decision was that he should be removed. There was no dereliction of duty proved against John F. Baudouine, nor was it shown that he had been unfaithful in any way, shape or manner to his trust.”
    
      Thomas W. Burke for appellant.
    
      John A. Garver, Cortland Betts and Henry Bogert Clark for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.