The North Carolina Business Court issued a ruling on June 25, 2026, in the case of Olds v. Olds, docket number 25-CVS-166, involving a family dispute over custodial funds. The case centers around John Robert Olds II, who is accused of mismanaging funds from a custodial account for his son, Davis Austin Olds. The court's decision affects both parties, particularly impacting the financial future of Davis, who is now an adult and entitled to the funds.
The dispute arose when Davis, who turned 21 on February 8, 2025, alleged that his father transferred a significant amount of money from a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) account, which was meant for his benefit, to a limited liability company (LLC) without his consent. The case highlights issues of fiduciary duty, financial management, and family relationships.
In the background of this case, Davis Olds, an adult resident of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, filed a complaint against his father, John Robert Olds II, and Cressbrook Investments LLC, where John is the managing member. Davis claimed that John, as the custodian of the UTMA account, had a fiduciary duty to manage the funds appropriately and transfer them to him upon reaching adulthood. Instead, he alleged that John transferred over $1 million from the account to Cressbrook shortly before Davis turned 21, claiming it was to protect him from mismanaging the funds.
According to the complaint, John Olds informed Davis that he had moved the funds into a trust-like mechanism to prevent Davis from accessing them, believing he was not responsible enough to handle the money. This led to multiple demands from Davis for the return of the funds, which John allegedly ignored, claiming that he had invested the money in Cressbrook. The case escalated when John filed a counterclaim for defamation against Davis, alleging that Davis made false statements about him.
The court's ruling addressed several motions filed by both parties. John Olds sought to dismiss Davis's claims for conversion, fraud, and other allegations, while Davis sought to dismiss John's defamation counterclaim. Judge A. Graham Shirley presided over the case and ruled on the motions after a hearing on January 8, 2026.
The court ruled to grant in part and deny in part both parties' motions. Specifically, it denied John's motion to dismiss the conversion claim, stating that Davis had sufficiently alleged that John assumed control over funds belonging to him without consent. The court emphasized that John had a fiduciary duty to manage the funds and comply with Davis's demands for their return.
The court stated, "Defendant Olds assumed control over funds belonging to Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and while deceiving Plaintiff as to the status of such funds."
However, the court granted John's motion regarding claims of fraud and constructive fraud, stating that Davis failed to specify which statements made by John were false or which material facts were concealed. The judge noted that while Davis alleged that John had concealed the transfer of funds, he had also admitted to being informed about the transfers, undermining his claim.
Furthermore, the court ruled against Davis's claims of unfair and deceptive trade practices, explaining that the alleged misconduct was confined to their family relationship and did not involve broader market transactions. The court also dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claim, stating that the funds were never John's property and thus could not be considered assets under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
The court's ruling has significant implications for both parties. For Davis, the denial of the motion to dismiss the conversion claim means he can continue to pursue his claim to regain access to the funds he believes are rightfully his. For John, the ruling on the fraud claims indicates that he may need to provide more transparency regarding the management of the funds and the financial activities of Cressbrook.
Looking ahead, both parties may consider their options for appeal. The court's ruling does not conclude the case, and further proceedings will likely address the remaining claims and counterclaims. The ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of family dynamics when financial interests are at stake, particularly in cases involving custodial accounts and fiduciary responsibilities.