Open Forum

Mark:

We did a little bit of research, I hope it helps

Analysis of the Issues

1. Right to Pretrial Discovery of Presumptive Remainder Beneficiaries' Identities

• Legal Context: In trust litigation, pretrial discovery is governed by civil procedure rules (e.g., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or state equivalents) and is intended to allow parties to obtain relevant information to support their claims or defenses. The identity of beneficiaries, including presumptive remainder beneficiaries with contingent interests, may be discoverable if it is relevant to the case. However, the scope depends on the nature of the lawsuit and the beneficiaries' legal standing.
• Contingent Interests: Presumptive remainder beneficiaries with contingent interests (e.g., those who may inherit only if certain conditions are met, such as the settlor's death or incapacity) typically have no current enforceable rights in a revocable inter vivos trust while the settlor is alive and competent, as the settlor retains full control to amend or revoke the trust. This is a widely accepted principle in U.S. trust law, particularly under the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) § 603, which many states have adopted with variations.
• Case Law Insight: There is no universally cited, recent case law directly addressing a third party's right to discover the identities of contingent presumptive remainder beneficiaries in a lawsuit against a trustee over trust real estate. However, cases like Manon v. Orr (2014, Michigan) suggest that in UTC states with specific provisions (e.g., bracketed language in UTC § 603(b)), contingent beneficiaries may gain standing or information rights upon the settlor's incapacity or death. In contrast, in states like Florida, which omitted this language, contingent beneficiaries generally lack rights until the settlor's death unless the trust instrument or court order provides otherwise. This variability indicates that discovery rights hinge on jurisdiction and trust terms.
• Relevance to Lawsuit: A third party suing a trustee over real estate (e.g., for mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty) would need to demonstrate that the identities of contingent beneficiaries are relevant-e.g., if their potential interests affect the trust's administration or the plaintiff's claim. Without such relevance, courts may limit discovery to avoid overreach.
• Your Concern (Harassment): Your argument that discovery of contingent beneficiaries' identities may be interposed for harassment has merit if the information sought lacks a legitimate purpose. Courts can deny or limit discovery if it appears to be a fishing expedition or intended to intimidate, under rules like Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (protective orders). However, this requires the trustee to object and provide evidence of bad faith, which a judge would evaluate case-by-case.

2. Discovery of Other Trust Assets

• Scope of Discovery: Pretrial discovery typically extends to any non-privileged matter relevant to the claim or defense, including trust assets if they are directly tied to the litigation (e.g., if the real estate dispute involves commingling of assets or solvency affecting the trustee's actions). However, in a revocable inter vivos trust, the settlor (if acting as trustee) retains ownership of the assets, and the trust is disregarded for many legal purposes during the settlor's lifetime. This blurs the line between trust and personal assets.
• Solvency Concern: Your point about prejudgment discovery into trust solvency raises a valid issue. Courts generally frown upon discovery aimed at assessing a defendant's overall financial condition unless it pertains to the specific claim (e.g., enforcing a judgment or proving fraud). In trust contexts, assets beyond the disputed real estate might be off-limits unless the plaintiff can show they are part of the alleged misconduct (e.g., if the trustee diverted funds to other trust assets). Cases like Lydia Schweer Family Trust ex rel. Fuqua v. Dingler (2010) focus on jurisdiction and specific asset disputes, not broad solvency probes, supporting a narrow discovery scope.
• Revocable Trust Distinction: Since a revocable inter vivos trust is subject to the settlor's control, third-party discovery into other assets could be seen as an improper intrusion into the settlor's personal estate, especially if the trust has not been irrevocable (e.g., post-settlor death). This aligns with the principle that a revocable trust offers no creditor protection until it becomes irrevocable, as noted in general trust law discussions.

3. Jurisdictional and Practical Considerations

• State Variations: The right to discovery varies by jurisdiction. UTC states (e.g., Illinois, effective 2020) may allow broader beneficiary rights post-incapacity, potentially justifying discovery, while non-UTC or differently adopted states (e.g., Florida) may restrict it. The trust instrument itself may also limit or expand disclosure obligations.
• Protective Measures: Trustees can seek protective orders to limit discovery if it exceeds relevance or threatens privacy. The burden is on the plaintiff to justify the request, and courts often balance the need for information against potential abuse.

Conclusion

• Case Law Gaps: As of now, no definitive, widely recognized case law directly addresses a third party's right to pretrial discovery of contingent presumptive remainder beneficiaries' identities or other trust assets in a lawsuit against a trustee over real estate in a revocable inter vivos trust. The outcome depends heavily on the specific jurisdiction, the trust's terms, and the lawsuit's nature. Cases like Manon v. Orr and Lydia Schweer Family Trust ex rel. Fuqua v. Dingler provide tangential guidance but don't resolve the issue.
• Your Position: Your skepticism about solvency discovery and harassment potential is reasonable and aligns with judicial tendencies to curb irrelevant or abusive discovery. However, the plaintiff could argue relevance (e.g., if beneficiary identities affect trust administration or assets are tied to the real estate dispute), shifting the burden to the trustee to seek protection.
• Recommendation: Without specific case law, consult a trust litigation attorney in the relevant jurisdiction to review the trust document and local rules. The trustee should object to overly broad discovery requests, citing irrelevance and potential harassment, and request a court ruling under applicable civil procedure rules.

Mark:

We did a little bit of research, I hope it helps

Analysis of the Issues

1. Right to Pretrial Discovery of Presumptive Remainder Beneficiaries' Identities

• Legal Context: In trust litigation, pretrial discovery is governed by civil procedure rules (e.g., Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or state equivalents) and is intended to allow parties to obtain relevant information to support their claims or defenses. The identity of beneficiaries, including presumptive remainder beneficiaries with contingent interests, may be discoverable if it is relevant to the case. However, the scope depends on the nature of the lawsuit and the beneficiaries' legal standing.
• Contingent Interests: Presumptive remainder beneficiaries with contingent interests (e.g., those who may inherit only if certain conditions are met, such as the settlor's death or incapacity) typically have no current enforceable rights in a revocable inter vivos trust while the settlor is alive and competent, as the settlor retains full control to amend or revoke the trust. This is a widely accepted principle in U.S. trust law, particularly under the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) § 603, which many states have adopted with variations.
• Case Law Insight: There is no universally cited, recent case law directly addressing a third party's right to discover the identities of contingent presumptive remainder beneficiaries in a lawsuit against a trustee over trust real estate. However, cases like Manon v. Orr (2014, Michigan) suggest that in UTC states with specific provisions (e.g., bracketed language in UTC § 603(b)), contingent beneficiaries may gain standing or information rights upon the settlor's incapacity or death. In contrast, in states like Florida, which omitted this language, contingent beneficiaries generally lack rights until the settlor's death unless the trust instrument or court order provides otherwise. This variability indicates that discovery rights hinge on jurisdiction and trust terms.
• Relevance to Lawsuit: A third party suing a trustee over real estate (e.g., for mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty) would need to demonstrate that the identities of contingent beneficiaries are relevant-e.g., if their potential interests affect the trust's administration or the plaintiff's claim. Without such relevance, courts may limit discovery to avoid overreach.
• Your Concern (Harassment): Your argument that discovery of contingent beneficiaries' identities may be interposed for harassment has merit if the information sought lacks a legitimate purpose. Courts can deny or limit discovery if it appears to be a fishing expedition or intended to intimidate, under rules like Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (protective orders). However, this requires the trustee to object and provide evidence of bad faith, which a judge would evaluate case-by-case.

2. Discovery of Other Trust Assets

• Scope of Discovery: Pretrial discovery typically extends to any non-privileged matter relevant to the claim or defense, including trust assets if they are directly tied to the litigation (e.g., if the real estate dispute involves commingling of assets or solvency affecting the trustee's actions). However, in a revocable inter vivos trust, the settlor (if acting as trustee) retains ownership of the assets, and the trust is disregarded for many legal purposes during the settlor's lifetime. This blurs the line between trust and personal assets.
• Solvency Concern: Your point about prejudgment discovery into trust solvency raises a valid issue. Courts generally frown upon discovery aimed at assessing a defendant's overall financial condition unless it pertains to the specific claim (e.g., enforcing a judgment or proving fraud). In trust contexts, assets beyond the disputed real estate might be off-limits unless the plaintiff can show they are part of the alleged misconduct (e.g., if the trustee diverted funds to other trust assets). Cases like Lydia Schweer Family Trust ex rel. Fuqua v. Dingler (2010) focus on jurisdiction and specific asset disputes, not broad solvency probes, supporting a narrow discovery scope.
• Revocable Trust Distinction: Since a revocable inter vivos trust is subject to the settlor's control, third-party discovery into other assets could be seen as an improper intrusion into the settlor's personal estate, especially if the trust has not been irrevocable (e.g., post-settlor death). This aligns with the principle that a revocable trust offers no creditor protection until it becomes irrevocable, as noted in general trust law discussions.

3. Jurisdictional and Practical Considerations

• State Variations: The right to discovery varies by jurisdiction. UTC states (e.g., Illinois, effective 2020) may allow broader beneficiary rights post-incapacity, potentially justifying discovery, while non-UTC or differently adopted states (e.g., Florida) may restrict it. The trust instrument itself may also limit or expand disclosure obligations.
• Protective Measures: Trustees can seek protective orders to limit discovery if it exceeds relevance or threatens privacy. The burden is on the plaintiff to justify the request, and courts often balance the need for information against potential abuse.

Conclusion

• Case Law Gaps: As of now, no definitive, widely recognized case law directly addresses a third party's right to pretrial discovery of contingent presumptive remainder beneficiaries' identities or other trust assets in a lawsuit against a trustee over real estate in a revocable inter vivos trust. The outcome depends heavily on the specific jurisdiction, the trust's terms, and the lawsuit's nature. Cases like Manon v. Orr and Lydia Schweer Family Trust ex rel. Fuqua v. Dingler provide tangential guidance but don't resolve the issue.
• Your Position: Your skepticism about solvency discovery and harassment potential is reasonable and aligns with judicial tendencies to curb irrelevant or abusive discovery. However, the plaintiff could argue relevance (e.g., if beneficiary identities affect trust administration or assets are tied to the real estate dispute), shifting the burden to the trustee to seek protection.
• Recommendation: Without specific case law, consult a trust litigation attorney in the relevant jurisdiction to review the trust document and local rules. The trustee should object to overly broad discovery requests, citing irrelevance and potential harassment, and request a court ruling under applicable civil procedure rules.