A court ruling in late December setting the formula to be used for final distribution of the assets of the George Galbraith Trust will make millionaires of a few of the trust’s 600+ beneficiaries, others could receive several hundred thousand each, while most will receive only modest sums.
It marks the beginning of the final stage of the trust, which has been criticized for enriching the trustees (Bank of Hawaii) and lawyers far more than it has benefited those named as beneficiaries.
Probate Judge Colleen Hirai issued a court order in late December, shortly before her retirement at year’s end, setting out how the Galbraith Trust is to be distributed to its beneficiaries.
The trust was established after George Galbraith’s death in 1904, and now has some 600 beneficiaries, descendants of 13 original beneficiary groups, scattered around the world from Hawaii to Ireland.
The Galbraith Trust once owned over 2,000 acres of land in and around Wahiawa, in central Oahu. In mid-2008, the trust was valued at nearly $90 million, although unsuccessful efforts over several years to sell its real estate holdings suggests the $40 million value placed on those lands is far above its actual market value. An advertisement running in the current issue of Pacific Business News offers the remaining 1,723 acres of Galbraith land for $32,883,500.
Galbraith’s original will made a number of cash bequests to friends and relatives, then directed that the bulk of his estate be placed into a trust. He then named individuals or groups to receive annual annuity payments in varying amounts from the trust until it terminated. His will then provided:
On final ending and distribution of the trust, the trust fund is to be divided equally amongst those persons entitled at that time to the aforementioned annuitites.
But the meaning of the word “equally” has been debated for decades, as interests in the 13 remaining groups of annuitants have been split through inheritance, sales, and other transfers. In some cases, those holding an interest in the trust have given tiny fractional shares to their children or other relatives in hopes that each would get an equal share of the trust’s final value.
Hirai, apparently following a legal analysis offered by Honolulu attorney Bruce Graham, ordered that the trust first be divided equally among the 13 remaining groups of beneficiaries, and then further divided within each group according to the proportional interest held by each individual.
In making her decision, Hirai disregarded the recommendation of Michael J. Lum, the court-appointed Master in the case, who suggested that each beneficiary receive an amount proportional to their share of the annual $7,500 in annuity payments. However, Lum’s said in a December 3 hearing that he had been unable to find applicable case law to support his view, and instead based it on other factors.
Attorney Graham, however, submitted his own legal analysis citing substantial legal precedent to back his alternative approach.
Hirai’s ruling did not set out a timetable for the final liquidation of the trust and distribution to beneficiaries.
For more information about the Galbraith Trust, see my George Galbraith blog.
