Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Malualani B. Hoopiiaina Trusts

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided June 16, 2005No. 20040309-CAPublished

1DissentJackson, Judge

¶ 28 I concur in part and dissent in part.

I. TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF TRUST

¶ 29 The main opinion concludes that Malu “could not transfer the property in the trusts, as a trustee, other than as directed in the trusts.” This evades the well-established principle that a trustee can breach the trust, thereby triggering the statute of limitations. See 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 125 (2002) (“The trust relationship may continue until it is terminated by a repudiation by the trustee.... ”); 76 Am.Jur.2d Trusts § 654 (2005) (stating that the statute of limitations is tolled only “until the trustee openly…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Hammond v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Bair v. Axiom Design, L.L.C.Utah Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Hecht v. SlaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Caress v. FosterIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  5. American Tierra Corp. v. City of West JordanUtah Supreme Court · 1992

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API