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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/rettgp2440 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TRUSTS 3D PART 1. NATURE, CHARACTERISTICS, AND TYPES OF TRUSTS CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS § 2. Definition of Trust E.D.Cal.2024. Cit. in sup. Settlor of trust and trustee of trust sued investment company, alleging that defendant's deceased agent made fraudulent representations regarding the nature of annuities to induce plaintiffs into investing. This court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the deceased agent breached his fiduciary duties to disclose the material terms of the investment agreements, which included provisions to arbitrate claims related to the investments and creation of the trust, to settlor arising from their longstanding relationship and control agent had over settlor's accounts, and thus the arbitration provisions were void for fraud in the execution; however, the agent had no relationship with trustee, and thus, the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable against the trust. The court rejected trustee's attempt to transpose settlor's relationship with the agent to himself, reasoning that, under Restatement Third of Trusts § 2, the trust was a separate legal entity from settlor that was represented by trustee. Marshall v. Ameriprise Financial Services, 735 F.Supp.3d 1229, 1241. N.D.Ga.2024. Com. (i) quot. in sup. Employees, as participants in an employee-stock-ownership plan, filed a putative class action for reformation and rescission under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against plan administrator and plan fiduciaries, alleging that plaintiffs lost out on a substantial amount of monies because of a scheme in which defendants allegedly took employer's stock back from the plan for less than it was worth. While denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a post-termination amendment to the plan, this court held that the stock-ownership plan maintained a legal existence such that it could assent to arbitration through a post-termination amendment. The court quoted Restatement Third of Trusts § 2, Comment i, in explaining that, while the plan had distributed all of its stock and had no ongoing operations or concerns, it still held an asset in the form of legal claims against defendants on behalf of its beneficiaries, which constituted trust property that continued to be held in trust. Williams v. Shapiro, 724 F.Supp.3d 1295, 1308. 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.