Branch Banking & Trust Co.

<bold>1. Trusts — breach of fiduciary duty —</bold> <bold>negligent management — mental incompetency</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant bank on plaintiffs claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent management of the 1977 and 1981 trust accounts, because: (1) when properly requested, no provisions in the 1977 trust agreement afford defendant any discretion on with-holding distributions from the 1977 trust to the trust beneficiary's checking account regardless of the beneficiary's alleged mental<page_number>Page 712</page_number> incompetency at the time of the request; (2) requests for money from the 1977 trust came from the beneficiary or from someone representing him; and (3) in distributing the funds from the 1977 trust to the beneficiary's account at his request, defendant performed the duties expressly required by the 1977 trust agreement. N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>32-71</cross_reference>(a).</block_quote> <bold>2. Banks and Banking — honoring forged checks —</bold> <bold>failure to meet one-year notice period</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant bank on plaintiff guardian's claim that defendant improperly honored forged checks drawn on the pertinent checking account, because: (1) N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>25-4-406</cross_reference>(f) provides that failure of a customer or his representative to report his unauthorized signature within one year after the bank makes account statements available precludes a claim against the bank, even if the customer is incompetent (whether adjudicated or unadjudicated) during the one-year period for providing notice; (2) even if the Court of Appeals accepted the guardian's argument that the requirements of the statute should not be triggered until he was appointed guardian of the estate since the prior guardian was the alleged wrongdoer, the guardian notified the bank of the unauth