Opinion ID: 1228978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Remaining Enumerations of Error

Text: 10. (a) The beneficiaries contend that it was error to exclude as irrelevant evidence of the amount of the salaries paid to Haley from businesses controlled by the bank. This may be relevant to the determinations to be made on remand, as discussed in Division 11, below. (b) The beneficiaries contend that the denial of their motion in limine and the subsequent admission of evidence relating to income to and distributions from trusts was error. This ruling is not error in light of our holdings, although the fairness of the transactions is not determinative of the conflict issue. See Division 4, above. (c) The beneficiaries contend that the exclusion as irrelevant of evidence of a conversation between Haley and the beneficiaries' father was error. They contend that the conversation reveals Haley's attitude toward the beneficiaries, which demonstrates a lack of good faith. Because of the holdings in this case, there was no error. (d) The beneficiaries contend that the trial judge erred in altering the amount of the judgment. This contention is mooted by our holdings. (e) The bank contends that the trial court should have approved the exchange of lots, or should have denied to the beneficiaries any recovery of a portion of the sales price. There was no error.