In many ways, Georgia’s 2010 Trust Code is like no other.   The drafters of the Trust Code looked at the 1991 Georgia Trust Act, Uniform Trust Code, and trust laws in other jurisdictions to arrive at a code that is in some ways similar to that of other states but in other ways uniquely Georgia.  Within the last year or two, questions arising under the 2010 Trust Code have started to make their way into decisions of the Georgia Court of Appeals and, more recently, into the decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court.

In the most recent of these decisions, Hasty v. Castleberry (a counterpart of which we looked at here), the Georgia Supreme Court looked at one of the concepts Georgia borrowed from the UTC (shortened statute of limitations after a “report”) and one of the uniquely Georgia concepts (diversification).

Corporate trustees have wrestled with investing trust assets in their own stock, their own proprietary mutual funds, or through their affiliates.  State trust laws take varied approaches to these practices as have the corporate trustees themselves.  Some options – where permitted by law – include refunding the entire commissions, reducing the commissions, offsetting the commissions by reducing the trustee fees, or taking the full commissions.  Needless to say, any approach may be met with hostility from the beneficiaries and claims of improper self-dealing.  In French v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., a federal appellate court has given us a watershed opinion on one of these approaches taken by a corporate trustee.