.jpg)
Most trust litigation stays quiet. The filings get sealed, the settlement gets signed, and the rest of us never see how a judge actually weighs a trustee's motives against a trust's own terms. A newly unsealed Nevada probate file breaks that pattern, and it is worth a close read by anyone who drafts or administers an irrevocable trust with an amendment power built in.
The Background
The Murdoch Family Trust, an irrevocable trust, controls the family's voting stakes in Fox Corp. and News Corp. In late 2024, Rupert Murdoch pursued a restructuring effort internally called "Project Family Harmony." The plan would have let him appoint additional trustees with authority over the trust and its controlling shares in the two companies.
A Washoe County, Nevada probate commissioner, Edmund Gorman, reviewed the plan and recommended that the court deny it. His 96-page recommendation was filed in December 2024, but it stayed sealed until January 2026, when the Nevada Supreme Court forced its release. That is the file that, at least, new outlets can now read.
What the Commissioner Found
According to the unsealed recommendation, Gorman concluded the restructuring was built to cement son Lachlan Murdoch's control of the two companies after Rupert's death. He also found it was meant to preserve Rupert's editorial legacy and reduce the influence of his son James Murdoch, seen as the more liberal of the brothers.
That finding mattered because the trust's own language required any amendment to serve the beneficiaries as a group, not to advance one branch of the family over the others. Gorman found the trustee, Cruden Financial Services LLC, and the three managing directors who approved the plan acted in bad faith, abused their discretion, and breached the fiduciary duties they owed to all the trust's beneficiaries. He found the amendment's sole purpose was not the beneficiaries' benefit, as the trust document required. As This Is Reno reported, Gorman wrote that the plan amounted to an effort "to stack the deck in Lachlan's … favor."
Why the Internal Name Became a Problem
"Project Family Harmony" is the kind of label a client or a trustee's advisor picks without thinking much about how it will read years later in a public court file. Once the commissioner concluded the plan actually favored one beneficiary at the expense of others, the internal name became evidence of the gap between the stated purpose and the real one. The Associated Press, in a report carried by PBS NewsHour, noted that Gorman's own opinion used the phrase "carefully crafted charade" to describe the plan.
That is a lesson worth repeating: trust names, internal project names, talking points, and strategy memos do not disappear. If a plan cannot survive being read aloud by a skeptical judge, its name will not help.
Three Drafting and Administration Lessons
The case, and the unsealed determination, offer three lessons:
- "Sole Benefit of the Beneficiaries" is not Decorative Language: Many irrevocable trusts include a clause requiring that any amendment serve the beneficiaries' collective interest. This case shows a court applying that standard the way it is written, not as a mere formality. If a proposed change is designed to benefit one beneficiary's position over the others, the standard clause is enough to defeat it, even without proof of self-dealing by the person exercising the power.
- Broad Appointment Powers Deserve Real Limits: The amendment here would have let Rupert Murdoch appoint additional trustees with authority over the trust and its controlling votes. A power that broad, held by one person or one branch of a family, is exactly the kind of provision that invites a bad-faith challenge later. When you draft an appointment or modification power into an irrevocable trust, build in a check: an independent trust protector, a defined and neutral process for adding trustees, or a requirement that any amendment be tested against the sole-benefit standard before it takes effect.
- Process is Evidence: The commissioner did not just look at what the amendment said. He looked at who devised it, why, and what the trustee and its directors did when they approved it. That means the process a trustee follows before approving a significant change- board minutes, outside counsel involvement, documented consideration of all beneficiaries' interests- is not paperwork for its own sake. It is what a court will examine first if the amendment is ever challenged.
A Caution on the Posture of this Case
Gorman's findings are a probate commissioner's recommendation to the district court, not a final appellate ruling on the merits. The file only became public because a state supreme court forced disclosure of a sealed record, which is itself a reminder: sealing a trust fight does not make it permanent. If your client's family later disputes the seal, or if a beneficiary successfully argues for access as this one did, the internal reasoning behind an amendment can surface years later, read by people the trustee never anticipated as an audience.
For drafters, the practical takeaway is simple. Write the amendment power narrowly, tie it explicitly to the sole-benefit standard, and assume that someday, someone besides the family will read the file.
New York Times Co. v. Second Judicial District Court, No. 89347 (Nev. Dec. 23, 2025):
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/118075965.html
Thanks to Wealth Strategies Journal for reporting the case.
