Chapter 17 - The court does not make Tyler give back everything
Hannah’s initial damages model looked large.
If Janet had considered her from 2020 onward, she might have received substantial distributions.
Her expert calculated a range:
$210,000 to $330,000.
Janet’s expert:
$40,000 to $95,000.
Why difference?
Discretion.
Needs.
Timing.
Trust purpose.
Investment returns.
No fixed equal-share requirement.
Then court rejected a simplistic fifty-fifty approach.
Good.
Judge Cole said:
“The trust did not require annual equality. It required lawful consideration and impartial administration.”
Janet failed to consider Hannah at all.
That was breach.
But remedy needed evidence.
Then Tyler.
Could he be ordered to disgorge $306,200?
No automatic basis.
He received most distributions before knowledge.
He was not trustee.
No evidence he induced Janet to conceal Hannah.
He relied on trustee administration.
The post-knowledge $35,000 was separately adjusted.
Then $120,000 advance.
Existing terms remained.
No acceleration merely because litigation.
Then the court appointed Susan Parker to model a reasonable remedial distribution based on:
Trust resources.
Past Tyler support.
Hannah’s circumstances.
Future equality.
No need bankrupt trust.
Then Janet’s personal surcharge.
Possible for:
Legal costs caused by concealment.
Incremental professional fees.
Losses from improper administration.
Not every dollar Hannah might have received, if trust itself could make corrective distribution without harm.
The court preferred:
Correct trust first.
Surcharge trustee for avoidable costs and any uncompensated loss.
Then Janet requested settlement.
First time.
Why?
Removal risk.
Legal fees.
Reputation.
Control.
Hannah said:
“I’ll settle if she stops saying I’m a stranger to the trust.”
That was emotional, but legal documents could use:
Recognized descendant beneficiary.
No apology clause required.
Then negotiations began.
May you like
Not finished.
Main conflict remained.
