Court Opinion

ID: 9686974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:12:44.37925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.393193
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the majority opinion except as to that portion which asserts that In re Living Trust Created by Atwood, 227 Minn. 495, 35 N.W.2d 736 (1949) holds that the trust instruments in dispute must be sufficiently ambiguous to require litigation to establish their meaning and effect before an allowance of attorney fees may be made. I do not read the holdings in Atwood that narrowly. First of all, in Atwood there were ambiguities and the holding merely is that where there are ambiguities attorneys fees may be allowed if other appropriate circumstances are present. Atwood does not say that ambiguities must be present before attorneys fees may be allowed. The better rule should be broader than that proposed in the majority opinion. Even without ambiguities, if the legal effect of *869language used in a trust instrument is in reasonable doubt with respect to substantial and material issues, then in the discretion of the court attorneys fees may be allowed. The litigation should be conducted in good faith for the primary benefit of the trust as a whole and the adjudication to be obtained should be essential to the proper administration of the trust. In the instant case I agree with the result — that is, affirming the trial court’s denial of attorneys fees as being within that court’s discretion — although I would also have affirmed a modest allowance of attorneys fees if they had been awarded.