## Facts

- Carl Robert Wickman died in 1960 leaving a will that gave one-third of his estate outright to his widow, Elizabeth W. McGraw, and two-thirds to a testamentary trust for his two sons, Carl Victor Wickman and Robin Leif Wickman.
- The trust paid income to Elizabeth for life, with the trust corpus to pass to the sons as remaindermen at the trust’s termination.
- At Carl’s death, both sons were minors.
- Elizabeth served in multiple roles: executrix (personal representative) of the probate estate, trustee of the testamentary trust, and life income beneficiary of the trust.
- The probate estate was closed and distributed in 1964, but Elizabeth did not file a trust accounting until 1969, when the court ordered her to do so.
- After the accounting was filed, the sons objected, alleging the accounting used asset values as of the date of death (1960) rather than the date of distribution (1964).
- The sons contended this valuation approach skewed the division between Elizabeth’s one-third share and the trust’s two-thirds share by (1) undervaluing assets distributed to Elizabeth, effectively increasing her share, and (2) overvaluing assets placed in the trust, effectively reducing what the sons would ultimately receive.
- The sons sought disapproval of the accounting and removal of Elizabeth as trustee based on breach of fiduciary duty, including the duty of loyalty.
- Elizabeth relied on a will provision stating that the trustee’s valuation of estate assets would be “final and conclusive.”
- The trial court ruled for Elizabeth and approved the accounting without allowing the sons to present evidence supporting their objections.

## Issues

1. Whether a will provision making the trustee’s valuation “final and conclusive” prevents beneficiaries from obtaining judicial review when they allege the trustee acted disloyally or in a conflicted manner in valuing and allocating assets.
2. Whether the trial court erred by approving the accounting and rejecting the beneficiaries’ objections without permitting an evidentiary hearing on the alleged misvaluation and resulting misallocation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order approving the accounting.
- The court remanded for further proceedings so the beneficiaries could present evidence and the probate court could evaluate the challenged valuations and allocations under fiduciary standards.
- The court held that “final and conclusive” valuation language does not shield a trustee from accountability where beneficiaries claim the trustee’s conduct involved a conflict of interest and a possible breach of the duty of loyalty.

## Legal Principles

- A trustee owes beneficiaries a duty of loyalty and must administer the trust in good faith, avoiding self-interested conduct that disadvantages the beneficiaries.
- Courts may review a trustee’s administration and accounting even when the instrument grants broad discretion or states that certain trustee determinations are conclusive, particularly when a breach of fiduciary duty is alleged.
- Beneficiaries who file timely, specific objections to an accounting are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present evidence supporting those objections; a court errs by disposing of such objections summarily.
- When the same person serves as executor, trustee, and trust income beneficiary, the potential conflict in allocating and valuing assets between personal distributions and trust funding warrants careful judicial examination.

## Conclusion

The court reversed approval of the trustee’s accounting because the beneficiaries were not allowed to present evidence challenging the trustee/executor’s self-interested valuation and allocation of estate assets, and it ruled that a “final and conclusive” valuation clause cannot block judicial review where the trustee’s loyalty and accounting are placed in dispute.


Wickman v. McGraw (In re Trust under Will of Wickman), 289 So. 2d 788 (1974)