to support its theory-that the duty of a trustee must be based in reality at the time, and not in “prescience” or any heightened standard-are factually distinguishable, for the reason that they deal with situations in which money or property already under the control of a trustee was then mismanaged. See Def.’s Resp. 5-6 (citing three cases: Navajo Tribe of Indians, 9 Cl.Ct. 336, 400 (adjudicating the government’s alleged breach of its duty to manage Tribe-owned timberland); Stark v. United States Trust Co. of New York, 445 F.Supp. 670, 678-79 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (involving a beneficiary who sued a trustee to recover losses incurred allegedly as the result of the trustee’s lack of prudent management); and United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398, 93 S.Ct. 2202, 37 L.Ed.2d 22 (1973) (<HOLDING>)). In plaintiffs royalty undercollection
holding individual defendants subject to suit holding in a suit brought by an individual osage indian challenging the governments payment of estate tax that if  trust property is lost or destroyed or diminished in value the trustee is not subject to a surcharge unless he failed to exercise the required care and skill holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate holding that although a trustee is not required to watch the ticker as a speculator would    the question of the quality of judgment in holding or disposing of trust assets    coupled with evidence of failure to review or monitor the trust estate and refusal to meet with cotrustees presents a jury question on whether or not the trustee breached his duty