California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Babbitt v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 246 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. App. 2016):
Finally, courts in other jurisdictions that have considered whether a beneficiary can compel an accounting of revocable trust assets where the settlor and trustee were the same person, or where there is no evidence that the beneficiaries were damaged by a breach of duty to the settlor while the trust was revocable, have reached a similar result, although often because the beneficiaries lacked standing. For example, in In re Trust No. T1 of Trimble (Iowa 2013) 826 N.W.2d 474 the court held that, while a trust is revocable, "the trustee owes duties exclusively to the settlor and the settlor has full discretion to do what she wishes with her assetswhether it works to the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust or not." (Id. at p. 487 ; see Tseng v. Tseng (Or.App. 2015) 271 Or.App. 657, 669, fn. 3, 352 P.3d 74 ["[b]ecause the settlor retains complete control over the trust during the settlor's lifetime, actions by a settlor/trustee cannot harm the interests of a beneficiary in any cognizable way"].) The court in Trimble concluded that "[a] trustee who owes no accounting to beneficiaries while the trust is revocable should not face retroactive accounting duties for the same period upon the settlor's death." (Trimble, at p. 489,.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.