November 2016

Mennen, et al. v. Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware, et al. No. 1, 2016 (October 11, 2016)

We have blogged about this case before. See, e.g., http://www.gfmlaw.com/blog/her-final-report-master-legrow-adopts-ruling-her-draft-report-beneficiaries-trust-cannot-pierce

On the basis that the exceptions to the Master’s report were late-filed, the Vice Chancellor granted a motion to strike the exceptions to the Master’s final report. The Master’s final report had found, among other things, that the beneficiaries of a trust could not pierce the co-trustee’s own spendthrift trust to collect on a large damages award against the co-trustee for fiduciary breaches. The Supreme Court reversed the Vice Chancellor’s decision to not hear the exceptions on procedural grounds. As a result, the Vice Chancellor seemingly will now decide on remand whether the Master’s substantive decision finding that the co-trustee’s trust was protected was correct on the merits.