 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Clark2/17/2000
Helen Hayes, the adoptive mother of Sheronda Hayes (now Clark), was appointed Clark's guardian ad litem in litigation arising from an automobile collision in which both were injured. A monetary judgment in favor of Clark directed Hayes to hold the money in trust until Clark's 18th birthday. Instead, Hayes deposited the money into her own account. When she failed to deliver the funds to Clark after she turned eighteen, Clark brought this action against Hayes for conversion of the funds.
At trial, Hayes defended on grounds that she was not financially able to support Clark without using the child's estate. The court questioned whether the evidence showed that Hayes was not financially able to support the child. Ultimately, the court ruled that even if financial inability had been established, it would not be a defense to Hayes's breach of her duties as trustee. After directing a verdict in Clark's favor, the court entered judgment in the amount of $12,139.94 principal and interest. Hayes appeals. She contends that the trial court erred when it did not apply what she claims to be the controlling authority and when it found that the settlement order created an express trust. We find no error and we affirm.
Clark was born in 1973 and adopted by Hayes in 1983. They resided in New Jersey. As a result of a 1985 automobile collision in that state, personal injury actions were brought by Hayes on behalf of herself and Clark in a New Jersey Superior Court. In 1989, the parties moved to Georgia. Later that year, the New Jersey court entered judgment
in favor of the plaintiff, Sheronda Hayes, an infant by her guardian ad litem, Helen Hayes, . . . in the sum of $5,887.50 . . . against the defendant . . .; said sum to be disbursed to the guardian and mother of the infant plaintiff, Helen Hayes, to be held by Helen Hayes in trust for her daughter until her daughter's 18th birthday; and any bond of said guardian is hereby waived.
Hayes filed a pretrial motion asking the trial court to construe this order as not having established an express trust. Applying Georgia law because there was no proof of the law of the State of New Jersey, the court ruled that the order created a valid express trust.
1. Hayes challenges the correctness of this ruling.
She argues that the New Jersey order did nothing more than recognize that she was Clark's guardian. There is no merit in this argument. The order did recognize that the action had been prosecuted by Hayes on behalf of Clark in her capacity as guardian ad litem, and that she was also Clark's (natural) guardian and mother. But the order also directed Hayes to hold the money "in trust" on behalf of Clark until her 18th birthday.
"An express trust shall be created or declared in writing." "An express trust shall have each of the following elements, ascertainable with reasonable certainty: (1) An intention by a settlor to create a trust; (2) Trust property; (3) A beneficiary; (4) A trustee; and (5) Active duties imposed on the trustee, which duties may be specified in the writing or implied by law."
There is no merit in Hayes's argument that the New Jersey order did not establish an express trust because it did not name or impose active duties upon a trustee. Clearly, Hayes was the trustee. And active duties imposed on the trustee "may be specified in the writing or implied by law."
Nor is there merit in Hayes's argument that the New Jersey court could not be the settlor of a trust. Because the court had legal capacity to transfer title to the property, it could direct the guardian to hold the money in trust for the child.
2. In reliance on Pettigrew v. W
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|