Mennen v. Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware

Mennen v. Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware

The Supreme Court affirmed because the Court of Chancery properly adopted the Master's well-reasoned reports and the resulting orders and final judgment were supported by the record and legal standards for summary judgment and merits adjudication.

Citation
Mennen v. Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware
Parties
Appellants/cross Appellees: Kathryn Mennen; Sarah Mennen; Alexandra Mennen; Shawn Mennen; John Mennen; Defendant Below Appellee: Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware, in its capacity as the individual trustee of the Trust established by George S. Mennen for the benefit of George Jeff Mennen; Defendant Below Cross Appellant: George Jeff Mennen
Court
Supreme Court of Delaware
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Case Number
1, 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Chancery / Supreme Court Decision Affirming Court of Chancery Orders
Outcome
Affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Final Judgment, Master's Report, Appellate Review, Trust Administration
Source Language
English
Trusts and Estates Appellate Procedure Chancery Court Practice Summary Judgment Final Judgment Master's Report Appellate Review Trust Administration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Mennen; Sarah Mennen; Alexandra Mennen; Shawn Mennen; John Mennen

Appellants/cross Appellees

Fiduciary Trust International of Delaware, in its capacity as the individual trustee of the Trust established by George S. Mennen for the benefit of George Jeff Mennen

Defendant Below Appellee

George Jeff Mennen

Defendant Below Cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Chancery / Supreme Court Decision Affirming Court of Chancery Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Chancery correctly adopted the Master's Report and entered final judgment
  2. 2 Whether the motions for summary judgment and the merits determinations were correctly decided by the Master and adopted by the Court of Chancery
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court should affirm the lower courts' rulings

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court affirmed because the Court of Chancery properly adopted the Master's well-reasoned reports and the resulting orders and final judgment were supported by the record and legal standards for summary judgment and merits adjudication.

Court Disposition

Affirmed

Orders

  • The Court of Chancery's August 18, 2015 Order Adopting Master's Report is affirmed
  • The Court of Chancery's December 8, 2015 Order and Final Judgment is affirmed