Appeals court hears sprawling trust dispute over accounting, sanctions and asset liquidation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A lengthy appellate argument addressed default sanctions for alleged discovery violations, disputed accountings for trust proceeds, alleged post‑judgment transfers and whether the superior court exceeded its authority in ordering liquidation; the court took the matter under advisement.
The panel considered Renita K. Johnson v. George J. Karamis, an extended trust-and-estate dispute that presented multiple issues including alleged failure to produce bank and trust records, the propriety of a default sanction under Rule 37, the adequacy of a detailed post-judgment accounting, and whether the trial court properly authorized liquidation of trust property.
Appellant counsel Steve Grant contended the sanctions and default were disproportionate and that his client made sustained, documented efforts to obtain bank records (including SunTrust records) that were not available; he argued the court exceeded its authority when it ordered termination and liquidation of the trust property. Opposing counsel and beneficiaries maintained the trustee violated fiduciary duties, failed to preserve records and that judge-by-judge review supported the superior court’s decisions.
Counsel for family members and beneficiaries described extensive appendices, an 83-page accounting and evidence of discrepancies; the panel asked about standing, statute-of-limitations issues for conversion claims, and post-judgment conduct such as withdrawals allegedly made after entry of judgment. The court took the appeal under advisement and concluded the session.