Jo Ann Howard and Associates v. National City Bank, No. 15-3872 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePNC Bank appealed a jury verdict in favor of a special deputy receiver finding PNC liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in violation of its duties as trustee of various preneed trusts created by NPS. The Eighth Circuit held that appellees' claims arose under trust law rather than tort law and appellees were thus entitled only to the damages afforded under trust law; damages to the Missouri trusts after Allegiant's trusteeship or outside of the Missouri trusts were not recoverable from PNC as Allegiant's successor; the trust beneficiaries were NPS, consumers in Missouri, and the funeral homes that were to provide services to those consumers pursuant to the consumers' preneed contract; PNC was not relieved of liability unless Allegiant ensured that Wulf was investing trust assets within the authority of a reasonably prudent trustee; appellees' trust-law claim should have been tried to the court under the general rule; and the court rejected appellees' cross-appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Trusts. In action alleging Allegiant Bank, PNC's predecessor, breached its fiduciary duties as trustee of pre-need funeral deposits, was negligent and aided and abetted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, the district court erred in determining the claims arose under tort law and were actionable at law; plaintiffs brought a trust-law claim in equity that should have been tried to the court; the beneficiaries of the trust were National Prearranged Services, Missouri consumers and funeral homes that were to provide services to the consumers; the measure of damages for the trust claim is defined by Section 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting in tort; although the court erred in allowing the case to be tried to a jury on a tort-law theory, the court is not required to retry the matter in its entirety as it is familiar with the evidence and may proceed on the existing trial record as it sees fit, with receipt of any additional evidence the court finds appropriate.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.