Court Opinion

ID: 9734791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:46:14.290049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.365618
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I would not allow attorneys’ fees to the attorneys for Charles S. Arms and Elizabeth P. Arms. The Arms’ objective in this litigation was to force liquidation of the trust and compel distribution to the income beneficiaries. Had they succeeded, their attorneys would have received a substantial contingent fee. It was to be anticipated that if they lost, their attorneys would not be paid. I can see no reason why the trust which they put under seige should be burdened with the payment of fees for the attackers as well as the defenders of the trust. I disagree with the assumption that the Arms’ assault on the trust was conducted “for the primary benefit of the trust as a whole” within the meaning of In re Living Trust Created by Atwood, 227 Minn. 495, 35 N.W.2d 736 (1949).