Court Opinion

ID: 9733239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:59:33.934498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:39.726769
License: Public Domain

TODD, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion, but I am troubled by the action taken by the trustees in this case.
As noted in the majority opinion, the trustees of the various trusts in this case petitioned the court for an order restraining distribution until the question of Marjorie Caldwell’s involvement in the Congdon murder was resolved. I do not believe that the trustees acted properly when they filed this petition. We said in In re Great North-*273era Iron Ore Properties, 263 N.W.2d 610, 621 (Minn.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835, 99 S.Ct. 116, 58 L.Ed.2d 130 (1978), that “[i]t is fundamental trust law that trustees are under a legal duty to manage the trust ‘with equal consideration for the interests of all beneficiaries’.” Thus, as between the beneficiaries, the trustees must act as neutral stakeholders unless the trust instruments require them to do otherwise. Bringing a petition to prevent distribution of the trust proceeds to one of the beneficiaries is not a neutral action. In In re Estate of Nelson, 194 Minn. 297, 260 N.W. 205 (1935), we stated that an administratrix of an estate had no standing to challenge a distribution order, reasoning:
A mere stakeholder or one whose duty it is simply to safeguard the funds of the estate has no interest in the decree of distribution other than to turn over to the beneficiaries named therein the funds in his hands and cannot, at the expense of the estate, take part in controversies arising between claimants.
Id. at 299, 260 N.W. at 206. This same principle is generally applicable to trustees. See 2 A. Scott, The Law of Trusts § 183, at 1473 (1967). ■
Therefore, I do not believe that the trustees should have petitioned for an order restraining distribution; they also should not participate in any future disputes between the beneficiaries.