Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, beneficiaries of a testamentary trust challenged a trial court judgment that favored the trustee, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The trustee was accused of failing to collect fair market rent, inadequately marketing trust-held property before a sale, and waiving claims for back rent. The trial court dismissed these claims, citing the absence of expert testimony to establish the trustee's standard of care. The property, co-owned by EMK Contractors, Inc., was involved in transactions after Mark Marquess’s death, with his widow and daughters as beneficiaries. The trial court held that proof was required to show a different corporate trustee would have acted differently, which was not provided. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that expert testimony was unnecessary under ORS 128.057(1) to establish a breach of trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the trustee met the statutory standard. The appellate court did not address the third claim for relief, which had been dismissed without prejudice and was not appealed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Trusteessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the trustee's alleged failure to collect fair market rent and adequately test the market before selling the property could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
Reasoning: Plaintiffs alleged that the trustee failed to collect fair market rent for trust-held real property, did not adequately test the market before selling the property to a co-owner, and released claims for back rent upon sale.
Prima Facie Case of Breach of Trustsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case without expert testimony, as the trial court did not assess whether the trustee's actions met the statutory standard of care.
Reasoning: The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings, as the trial court did not assess whether the trustee's actions met the statutory standard of care.
Requirement of Expert Testimony in Establishing Standard of Caresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court ruled that expert testimony is not required to establish a prima facie case of breach of trust under ORS 128.057(1), which provides the standard of care for trustees.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that expert testimony was not required to establish a prima facie case of breach of trust. It affirmed that ORS 128.057(1) provides the standard of care applicable to trustees, which does not necessitate expert input.