Garner v. Redwine

The language of the trust reflected a clear intent on the part of the plaintiff's father that plaintiff should receive the personal contents of his home if she so desired.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In these consolidated appeals, we must determine whether the trial court properly interpreted a trust provision in an amendment to the Hill Reagan Redwine Revocable Trust. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. The record shows that on July 28, 2009, Elizabeth Redwine Garner filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Charles Redwine, William Redwine II, and Wanda Redwine “the Redwines”. In the petition, Garner sought a declaration of her rights, in part, with regard to a third amendment to her father’s revocable trust. Specifically, she asserted that she was entitled to the contents of her father’s personal residence based upon this amendment. At the time she filed her petition, the trustee was in ill health and had not yet distributed any of the trust’s assets. Two days after Garner filed her petition, the trustee filed his own petition for declaratory judgment in the same court seeking guidance with regard to the meaning of the third amendment. He also sought approval to resign as trustee due to “substantial health issues.”

One week later, the trustee entered into a settlement agreement with the Redwines in which he agreed to distribute the trust proceeds, including the personal contents of their father’s home, to the Redwines in exchange for their release of all their claims against him. The settlement agreement also provided, however, that the Redwines were obligated to “hold and not distribute or convey to a third party any of the personal property” at issue “until the resolution by agreement, decree or appeal of the civil action filed by Garner. . . .” On September 16, 2009, the superior court issued a temporary restraining order and interlocutory injunction in the case filed by Garner prohibiting the Redwines from damaging, selling, removing, conveying, or transferring the contents of the father’s home.

Garner v. Redwine

The language of the trust reflected a clear intent on the part of the plaintiff's father that plaintiff should receive the personal contents of his home if she so desired.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report