Logo

(509) 455-9555

NEWS

SUMMER ASSOCIATE REFLECTIONS, WRITTEN BY ALAYNA M. PIWONSKI

JUNE 2020-BOARD OF DIRECTOR STATEMENT REGARDING COMMUNITY EVENTS

LUKINS & ANNIS, P.S. MOURNS THE LOSS OF GENE ANNIS, RETIRED FOUNDER OF THE FIRM, WHO PASSED THIS WEEK SURROUNDED BY HIS FAMILY.

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: WHAT STEPS CAN I TAKE TO MINIMIZE RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IF I END UP IN A CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE?

Charles Hausberg  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: WHAT ARE UNIQUE ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE OFFICE LEASES?

Joe Romberg  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN ERRORS

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL: ESTATE PLANNING

David Webster  

LOCAL NEWS: INVESTIGATION REOPENED IN DEATH OF BICYCLIST RYAN HOLYK

Mike Maurer  

LOCAL NEWS: IN HOLYK CASE, SCIENTIST'S TESTIMONY DOESN'T SQUARE WITH INVESTIGATORS' STATEMENTS

Mike Maurer  

LOCAL NEWS: EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL SETTLES PATIENT DEATH LAWSUIT FOR $360,000

Mike Franklin   Kelly Konkright  

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: HOW WILL YOU BE REMEMBERED? LEADING BY DOING AND THE WELL-LIVED LIFE

SPECIAL REPORT BILL HYSLOP: ENSURING ACCESSIBLILITY

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: WHAT ARE YOUR PERSONAL "LEGAL" RESOLUTIONS FOR THE NEW YEAR?

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE

WSBA PRESIDENT'S CORNER: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - EASEMENTS

WILLIAM HYSLOP SWORN IN AS WSBA PRESIDENT

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - HIPAA

L&A IN LOCAL NEWS> HOLYK'S DNA FOUND ON PATROL CAR; SHERIFF DENIES THAT DEPUTY HIT BICYCLIST

Mike Maurer  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - PROBATE

Tom Culbertson  

ASK THE LUKINS & ANNIS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL - WHAT VALUE DOES A BUSINESS ATTORNEY BRING TO MY COMPANY?

Paul Davis  

IDAHO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE COMPLIMENTS WINNING LUKINS & ANNIS ATTORNEY IN TRUST LITIGATION

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS REVERSAL OF INJUNCTION ON LAND USER RESTRICTIONS BY THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT

Michael Hines  

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF HOME OWNER'S LAWSUIT BY DIVISION III OF THE WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS

LUKINS & ANNIS CLIENT OBTAINS SIGNIFICANT 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION AGAINST RED LION HOTEL FRANCHISOR UNDER WASHINGTON FRANCHISE INVESTMENT PROTECTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS

Mike Maurer  
IDAHO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE COMPLIMENTS WINNING LUKINS & ANNIS ATTORNEY IN TRUST LITIGATION

In Bowman v. Washington Trust Bank, Lukins & Annis successfully defended its trustee client against multiple challenges asserted by three trust beneficiaries.

In the case, trust beneficiaries sued Lukins & Annis' client in its role as trustee, claiming that the bank negligently operated the trust and breached its fiduciary duty. The Idaho district court granted Lukins & Annis attorney Mischelle Fulgham's motions to dismiss all claims against the bank in part because the trustee's actions were authorized by the trust instrument and Idaho law.

When the beneficiaries appealed, Fulgham convinced the Idaho Supreme Court to affirm the trial court's dismissal. She argued these trust beneficiaries did not have standing to challenge the trustee's conduct and that their claims were not ripe for judicial review. The Idaho Supreme Court agreed, affirming the lower court's dismissal. In its opinion, the Court particularly noted that Fulgham had done "a good job of arguing its case before the Court and responding to questions."

The Idaho Supreme Court's decision reinforces that trust beneficiaries must have a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy in order to sue a trustee. The Court held that, in this case, the beneficiaries' trusts were separate, and the suing beneficiaries had not been affected by the administration of the other beneficiary's trust. Likewise, trust beneficiaries must have suffered actual damages and must establish a real controversy over which to sue. Here, the beneficiaries challenged an action to partition trust property, but no such partition action was pending. Thus, their claim was not ripe and was properly dismissed.

Read a copy of the Idaho Supreme Court's opinion here.

Logo