IN THE MATTER OF THE MASHBURN MARITAL TRUST VS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT cJ NUMBER 2006 CA 1753 J cJ Jb IN THE MATTER OF THE MASHBURN MARITAL TRUSTS CONSOLIDATED WITH NUMBER 2006 CA 1754 IN THE MATTER OF THE MASHBURN FAMILY TRUST Judgment Rendered December 28 2006 Appealed from the Twenty First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa Louisiana Trial Court Number 2001 003 363 c w Probate Number 71 684 Honorable Ernest G Drake Jr L Kevin Coleman Judge Attorney for Appellants Joseph Patton Pat Mashburn Richard Anthony Mashburn in Mandeville LA Their Capacity as the Co Trustees of the MashbmTI Family Walter Antin Jr Trust Hammond LA Attorney for Appellee Timothy R Mashburn Pierre V Miller Attorney for Appellee Pierre V Miller II Helen Mashburn Penton New Orleans LA BEFORE 52w GUIDRY GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ P 71 c A R ef2 WELCH J This is Mashburn family Tim in their capacities from trust Patton appeal by Joseph an Mashburn trial a the as Pat trustees of the co judgment ordering them court 2 000 per month from the assets of the trust For the Trust companion 2006 0741 the trial 2006 0742 Marital Trust co II trustees the of the family trust family was trust family co trustees sum of handicapped unable to trust trusts s a judgment of principal 2 in Mashburn judgments a of the Jack motion and order was one of nine that the fair market value of 400 5 since that he had not 000 00 May 2005 that he was work and in need of medical attention and that We refer to In Re Mashburn Marital Trust 242 writ denied court 2 000 per month alleging that he approximately distribution from either of his destitute 2d So of So 2d November 4 2005 Tim Mashburn filed on a 924 the suspensively appealed received Trust 06 and if necessary from its trust and income beneficiaries of the assets sum we reverse forth in this challenged trust Tim Mashburn the for emergency distributions from his principal 28 12 managing marital Trust to pay from the income of the marital After the the trust that follow set fully 1st Cir App wherein the II ordering them case are more La Pugh Mashburn Marital court R Timothy also rendered this date In Re Mashburn Marital case Mashburn Marital Trust and Sadie Trust court background facts of this opinion in to pay family reasons Family FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I The Mashburn of the nine beneficiaries of the one the judgment of the trial Mashburn and Richard A Additionally trustees of the appeal in that family trust the La 22 9 managing 06 co 927 2d So La 384 App 1st Cir 29 12 05 Mashburn Marital I 2 2006 1034 2004 1678 as trustees of the marital trust and the co challenged a trial court judgment declaring that the family trust and separate trusts for a total of eighteen trusts to which different the marital tmst each created nine tmstees could be appointed marital trust removed the appointed co removed the co trustees from two of the trusts trustees from two of the trusts established the beneficiaries ofthose four trusts as 2 the successor by established the family trustee for each trust by trust the and his without distributions from the resources were insufficient to provide for his Mashburn Marital Trust distributions from the trust Therefore he II assets of his principal requested family its ie principal maintenance support necessary during the suspensive appeals by and welfare expenses of the assets co receive to trust the medical trustees in emergency pursuant to La RS 9 2067 On trust to January 23 2006 the trial The trial November 8 2005 with each A written judgment court on family marital January tlust have trust 2006 and it is from this 31 appeal the principal because trust any circumstance the trust this effect judgment was from signed by that the trustees assert that trial court erred in s interest in the marital trustees of the co instrument does allow for the invasion of not Tim Mashburn will ordering invasions of trust under La never be entitled to during his lifetime and Tim Mashburn failed Louisiana Revised Statutes 9 2067 The proper principal enjoy R S 9 2067 principal the to prove court may from the trust or permit a trustee to pay property for the necessary ifthe interest of no other 3 beneficiary of the trust is of his needs in provides direct under principal income support maintenance education medical expenses or welfare of a beneficiary before the time he is entitled to the enjoyment of that income or principal thereby Tim the trial accordance with La R S 9 2067 or not to LAW AND DISCUSSION of Tim Mashburn the accounted for and monthly distributions to to appealed II On to be retroactive was family trust and that such distributions were s ordered s family 2 000 per month to Tim of monthly distribution duplicative of the previously Mashburn amount of the trustees co further ordered that the award court deducted from Tim Mashburn the ordered the make distributions from the trust in the Mashburn be court impaired In and construing trust a the settlors given effect unless opposed intention controls and is law to Atkinson Clifford Trust 2000 0253 776 2000 2262 writ denied evidence may be admitted instrument is La to or 10 27 00 aid in In Re James C public policy App 1st Cir 6 La 23 00 772 So 2d 655 construing the ambiguous and uncertain and only to be ascertained to 762 So 2d 775 Parol or instrument trust the only if contradict the not explain extrinsic instrument Id First and foremost for we note that the and therefore the settlors principal of the family family trust for any trust to trust instrument does Jack and Sadie Mashburn be invaded Further reason family by we did not intend for the not any of the nine beneficiaries of the note that the family instrument trust provides and therefore the settlors intended only for the payment of the beneficiaries given effect on an we annual basis find the provide With these intentions of the following provisions income to controlling and being trust family instrument relevant At the outset the settlors stated in the their intent for this Trust to Trust that satisfies the satisfy legitime due the legal any 1 2 and 1 3 provide that the settlors income and principal and Paragraph instrument shall be held subject involuntary alienation by the to family trust requirements instrument that it for a Class Trust and beneficiary from the Settlors nine children 1 5 are a Paragraphs the beneficiaries of both Each provides was trust the maximum restraint beneficiary permitted by the created on by this voluntary provisions or of the Louisiana Trust Code Additionally Paragraph 1 5 child of the Settlors shall succeed child s income or principal Testament of that child provides that to the income has been interest t a deceased interest of that child unless that disposed Additionally Paragraph 4 he descendants of 16 of in the Last Will and provides that i n any case where substituted a such beneficiary held pursuant and Paragraph pursuant s beneficiary or or beneficiaries succeed interest in the beneficiaries class 1 4 provides since the case trust which and settlor parent members of he t case interest in this Trust principal of this Trust shall be that t he term provided of each of the Trusts established this instrument shall be for the maximum time allowed to In this a an this Trust until the Trust termination date hereinafter to Louisiana Trust Code for the existence of class it is to a trust trust was die to family trust trusts included all of the settlors nine children closed upon the death of Jack Mashburn the second 9 1891 and 9 1896 See La R S the beneficiaries of both income and are by the shall continue with respect lifetime unless the trust instrument to stipulates a the share of shorter a When the class principal as in this class member for his La R S 9 1906 term see also La R S 9 1901 Considering these relevant provisions and the settlors that the of each principal interest beneficiary until the termination of the trust settlors principal interest be distributed until the trust family which will trust nine children beneficiaries die entitled to the in the occur intentions trust was when the last of the never during his lifetime because it will and the deaths of his terminates after his death find to be held in As such Tim Mashburn will of his trust we be not eight siblings Although principal the La other beneficiary point 3 9 2067 does allow for the payment of the trust in certain limited circumstances beneficiary and for the RS reasons 3 then before permitted in the future be See Read v U S Dep only a can to the t of Treasury of the needs of impair the interest of any order the invasion of the principal of the trust under La R S entitled invasion involving objective if such invasion does not comi or 9 2067 the beneficiary enjoyment of 169 F 3d 243 251 5 must principal that 5th Cir 1999 at some La R S 9 20167 see also Mashburn Marital Trust In this use of the case Tim Mashburn will 2006 0741 II p be entitled to the never 12 enjoyment principal of the trust because the tlust instrument does principal interest until the the payment of the trust terminates So 2d not at the or at the provide for death of the last of its nine beneficiaries Accordingly from the principal we find that Tim Mashburn of the Since the trial court trust under the III F or the above and court is provisions not set incorrectly determined otherwise January 31 2006 judgment of the trial trial was court entitled to distributions forth in La R S we hereby 9 2067 reverse the 4 CONCLUSION foregoing reasons the January 31 2006 judgment of the the appellee Timothy R Mashburn hereby reversed All costs of this appeal are assessed to REVERSED 4 Since we have determined that the of principal under any principal of the family Mashburn will pretennit never circumstance family trust instrument does not allow for the invasion and that Tim Mashburn is not entitled to invade the provisions set forth in La R S 9 2067 because to enjoy the principal of the trust during his lifetime Tim Mashburn sufficiently proved the necessity for trust under the be entitled discussion of whether distributions under La R S 9 2067 6 Tim we such
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.
