Sally Rich’s great grandfather, William Prescott, was a director of Trust Company of Georgia during its formative years. As a result of inheritances from him, at the time of her death in 2003 Sally Rich had a custodial account with Trust Company of Georgia’s successor, SunTrust Bank, with assets valued at over $45 million. The bulk of her estate passed to her husband Clayton Rich under a marital trust. Upon Clayton Rich’s death in 2004, the bulk of his estate passed to their three daughters. The daughters —Melanie Rich Savu, Sally Rich Kolb, and Lisa Rich Barr —brought this suit charging SunTrust with breach of fiduciary duty. They claim that SunTrust and Ralph Morrison, the trust and estate attorney recommended to Sally and Clayton Rich the Riches by SunTrust, failed to advise them to employ well-recognized estate tax savings devices —specifically, a family limited partnership —that could have reduced their estate tax liability from approximately $20 million to about $14 or $15 million. The Rich daughters also complain that after SunTrust recommended Morrison to the Riches, he named SunTrust as executor of their wills and trustee of various testamentary and inter vivos trusts; that after the Riches died, SunTrust in turn employed Morrison to render legal services to the estates; and that this cross-referral arrangement put both Morrison and SunTrust in a conflict-of-interest position that allowed them to charge the estates excessive fees.
The Rich daughters appeal the trial court’s grant of SunTrust’s motion for summary judgment. Finding an absence of evidence to support essential elements of each of their claims, we affirm.To prevail at summary judgment, . . . the moving party . . . has the burden to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, warrant judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment . . ., we must construe the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, and we must give the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable doubts and possible inferences. And, where, as here, the moving party . . . is the defendant, it need only show an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff’s case to prevail on summary judgment.1Here, the following is undisputed.
