Substantial evidence supported the findings that defendant trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by failing to tell plaintiff about her subtrust and that plaintiff suffered no damage from her asserted ignorance of the subtrust. A trustee owes the beneficiary a fiduciary duty to inform the beneficiary that the trust exists for his benefit. However, the duty is only to say the trust exists and possibly also state who the trustees are. The trustee need not give the beneficiary any additional details unless the beneficiary requests them. Here, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the trustees told plaintiff there was a subtrust for her, but she thereafter failed to make further inquiry. So the trustees did not breach their duty. Also, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that plaintiff suffered no damages anyway, as the only alleged damage was loss of a property she could have saved anyway but did not wish to do so because she thought it was toxic.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 (Perren, J.); January 31, 2017; 2017 WL 407922