Seth A. Alden and Cornelia Dodge Alden v. Nancy B. Alden, James Carver Alden, Julia Dee and Todd Howard Alden, 2010 VT 3

992 A.2d 298 (2010) · Supreme Court of Vermont · January 22, 2010 · No. No. 09-017

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion seeking to limit the preclusive effect of an order terminating and distributing a trust. The court held that the trial court generally need not determine the res judicata effect of its judgment and that the appellants' fiduciary-breach claims were not barred because they had attempted, but were not permitted, to litigate them in the termination action. It also held that the trust-distribution formula did not preclude the appellants from seeking a different apportionment of damages in the separate fiduciary-breach action.

Holdings

  1. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to limit or otherwise address the preclusive effect of its termination order.
  2. The termination order did not preclude appellants from pursuing their fiduciary-breach claims in the separate Fiduciary Breach Action because they had sought to raise those claims in the Termination Action but were not permitted to do so.
  3. The trust-distribution formula did not preclude appellants from arguing in the fiduciary-breach action that they should each receive one-fifth of the value of trust assets proven to have been misappropriated.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying appellants' Rule 59(e) motion to amend the trust-termination order to limit its preclusive effect.
  2. Whether the termination order would preclude appellants from litigating their fiduciary-breach claims in a separate action.
  3. Whether the trust-distribution formula would preclude appellants from seeking a different apportionment of damages for assets allegedly misappropriated by the trustee.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (10)

  • Rubin v. Sterling Enters., Inc., 164 Vt. 582, 588, 674 A.2d 782, 786 (1996)(followed)
  • In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292, 302, 640 A.2d 39, 45 (1994)(followed)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 396, 116 S. Ct. 873, 134 L. Ed. 2d 6 (1996)(followed)
  • Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 576 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1339-40 (M.D. Fla. 2008)(followed)
  • Midway Motor Lodge of Elk Grove v. Innkeepers' Telemgmt. & Equip. Corp., 54 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Angelos, 762 F.2d 522, 525 (7th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Carlson v. Clark, 2009 VT 17, ¶ 13, 185 Vt. 324, 970 A.2d 1269(followed)
  • Lamb v. Geovjian, 165 Vt. 375, 380, 683 A.2d 731, 734 (1996)(followed)
  • In re Armitage, 2006 VT 113, ¶ 4, 181 Vt. 241, 917 A.2d 437(followed)
  • Trickett v. Ochs, 2003 VT 91, ¶ 10, 176 Vt. 89, 838 A.2d 66(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…