2010AP115 Haugen, et al. v. Hanson

Listen to this article

Trusts and Estates
Breach of fiduciary duty

Steven Hanson, pro se, and Stanley Hanson appeal a money judgment against them for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duties relating to their deceased father’s trust. They argue that the circuit court failed to apply the proper legal standard and misinterpreted the trust language, that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate either a conspiracy or a breach of fiduciary duty, that a two-year statute of limitations should have applied and reduced the damages award, and that the damages award is not supported by the evidence. Steven also makes several additional arguments. We reject Steven’s and Stanley’s arguments, with one exception. One component of the damages award was without any evidentiary basis because it in fact represented transfers between the trust’s bank accounts—not disbursements. We therefore direct the circuit court to subtract $42,803.50 from the judgment. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. This opinion will not be published.

2010AP115 Haugen, et al. v. Hanson

Dist III, Barron County, Doyle, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hanson, Steven D., pro se; Miller, Steven L., River Falls; For Respondent: Wieckowicz, Amanda L., Chetek; Cote, Curtis P., Chetek

Full Text