Court Opinion

ID: 9793625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:50:49.077163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:16.863278
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
KID WELL, J.
The majority opinion may well achieve an equitable result in this case, but the interpretation of the decree by which this *591result is achieved is one in which regretfully I cannot concur. The decree said expressly that the trust res consisted of 3,938 shares of out-of-option stock and 5,250 shares of in-option stock. This part of the decree was drafted jointly by the parties’ tax advisors, who presumably would have said that the trust was composed of an undivided one-half interest in 18,375 shares if that had been intended. In my opinion, the decree clearly expressed the intent that the trust be composed of the specified number of unallocated shares of the two classes of stock. Appellant was not by the decree deprived of control and disposition of the shares which were not in the trust.
The correspondence quoted in footnote 11 of the majority opinion may reflect an improper withholding by appellant from appellee of out-of-option shares held in the trust, which she desired to sell to liquidate her share of the bank loan. If appellee’s rights were infringed by such withholding, the proper course is to determine and assess appellee’s damages. But the circumstances described in the majority opinion do not support the conclusion that appellant disposed of appellee’s property or is required to account to appellee for the proceeds of the sale of any shares.
I would reverse and remand this case for further proceedings to determine what liability, if any, was incurred by appellant as trustee of unallocated whole shares of stock held for appellee’s benefit.