Delaware Supreme Court Remands Matter to Court of Chancery so that Vice Chancellor can Decide, on the Merits, Whether to Affirm Master’s Holding That Spendthrift Trust Cannot be Pierced

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.