About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/resect1490 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TRUSTS 2D CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS § 2. Definition of Trust C.A.5, 2025. Cit. in case cit. in sup. After obtaining judgment against Texas co-trustee of a related trust, Louisiana trustee of two charitable trusts sued Texas co-trustee, personally and in his capacity as co- trustee, alleging that defendant's lapses in authorizing payments to plaintiff s charitable trusts caused those trusts to incur debt and tax penalties. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed, holding that there was complete diversity of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, rejecting defendant's argument that the parties lacked complete diversity of citizenship on the ground that defendant's unnamed co-trustees were Texas citizens and explaining that no authority required consideration of the citizenship of non-party trustees when determining diversity jurisdiction. The court further noted that the charitable trusts themselves were not parties to this action, because, according to Restatement Second of Trusts § 2, trusts were not distinct legal entities but rather fiduciary relationships between multiple people. Cook v. Marshall, 126 F.4th 1031, 1036. D.D.C.2022. Com. (g) cit. in case quot. in sup. Chinese dissidents sued global web-services provider, foundation, and others, alleging that provider created a charitable trust by transferring funds to foundation as part of a settlement of a human-rights lawsuit filed by other dissidents, and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties as trustees by permitting the trust's assets to be depleted for improper purposes. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that defendants established a charitable trust. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. After an evidentiary hearing, this court held that the settlement established a charitable trust under District of Columbia law. The court cited Restatement Second of Trusts § 2 in reasoning that the plain language of the settlement included the essential elements of a charitable trust; specifically, that provider intended to contribute the trust property, that it intended for foundation to serve as trustee, and that it designated a charitable purpose as beneficiary. Depu v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 715 F.Supp.3d 1, 19. § 3. Settlor, Trust Property, Trustee and Beneficiary COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.