Lucile Hansen v. Peoples Bank of Bloomington as Trustee of the Trust of Olga J. Nydegger and A. W. Augspurger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• requiring joinder of remainder beneficiaries because “[a] judgment in favor of termination would not only impair [the beneficiaries’] ability to protect [their future] interest, but might actually operate to terminate their interest”
• requiring the beneficiaries be named as parties in an action seeking to extinguish a trust because “judgment in favor of termination would not only impair their ability to protect that interest, but might actually operate to terminate their interest”
• remaindermen of trust were Rule 19(a) parties where a “judgment in favor of termination [of the trust] ... might actually operate to terminate their interest”
• “The rule also mandates that the court consider the possibility of shaping relief to protect the interests of absent persons as an alternative to dismissing the action.”
• minimum contacts were satisfied where a forum state exercised jurisdiction “over a nonresident beneficiary to adjudicate claims relating to a trust located in Illinois and administered by an Illinois trustee”
• subsequent “minimum contacts” decisions have “not displace[d] the Supreme Court’s conclusion in [Mullane]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).