(Code 1981, §53-12-303, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131; Ga. L. 2018, p. 262, § 23/HB 121.)
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, substituted "revoke the trust" for "direct the trustee" near the end of the first sentence of subsection (b); and deleted former subsection (c), which read: "Whenever a trust reserves to the settlor or vests in an advisory or investment committee or in any other person, including a cotrustee, to the exclusion of one or more trustees, the authority to direct the making or retention of any investment, the excluded trustee shall be liable, if at all, only as a ministerial agent and not as trustee for any loss resulting from the making or retention or any investment pursuant to the authorized direction."
Law reviews.- For article on the problems and benefits of multiple fiduciaries in estate planning, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 355 (1981). For article on the 2018 amendment of this Code section, see 35 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 219 (2018).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194 of the 1991 Trust Act are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Release and indemnification agreement did not meet definition of trust instrument.
- Trial court erred in granting beneficiaries' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim a trustee's counterclaim, alleging that by filing their complaint, the beneficiaries breached contracts in which they released trustee from any liability because the beneficiaries' complaint sought damages for negligence and for conduct that preceded and followed the execution of a release and indemnification agreement; the trial court erred in ruling that the release provisions were facially void under the limits on trust instruments imposed by former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194 (see O.C.G.A. § 53-12-303) and were not subject to enforcement through a breach of contract claim because the release and indemnification agreement did not meet the definition of a trust instrument set forth in former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-2 (see O.C.G.A. § 53-12-2), and the beneficiaries and trustee executed them long after the creation of the trust and several years after the settlor's death. Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879, 686 S.E.2d 284 (2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194).
Document delegating individual as co-trustee was not "trust instrument."
- Co-trustee was entitled to summary judgment on a trust beneficiary's breach of fiduciary duty claim because the beneficiary waived any claim against the co-trustee in the delegation instrument; former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194(a), prohibiting such waivers of claims against trustees in a trust instrument, did not apply because the delegation instrument was not a trust instrument. Kahn v. Britt, 330 Ga. App. 377, 765 S.E.2d 446 (2014)(decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53- 12-194).
Instrument naming an individual as co-trustee was not a trust instrument.
- Pursuant to an instrument delegating a trustee as co-trustee, the trust beneficiary waived any claim against the trustee for acts relating to an asset transfer by the beneficiary; former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194(a), prohibiting such insulations from liability, applied to trust instruments, and the document delegating the co-trustee was not a trust instrument. Kahn v. Britt, 330 Ga. App. 377, 765 S.E.2d 446 (2014)(decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-194).
Jury question as to whether duty of good faith breached.
- Jury question was presented as to whether two trustees of their children's trusts acted against the interests of the beneficiaries (their children) in bad faith by amending a partnership agreement to concentrate all voting power in themselves to the exclusion of the beneficiaries, who otherwise would have become partners when they turned 45. Likewise, the trustees as partners owed duties to the trusts as partners in the partnership. Rollins v. Rollins, 338 Ga. App. 308, 790 S.E.2d 157 (2016).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 76 Am. Jur. 2d, Trusts, §§ 446, 447.