Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased. Gladys L. ROSE and Jill M. Miller, Beneficiaries of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Appellants, v. Edward O'REILLY, Successor Trustee, and Samantha Hale, Beneficiary of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-11-18
Citations: 116 Or. App. 512
Docket Number: 50-88-05626; CA A72865
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased. Gladys L. ROSE and Jill M. Miller, Beneficiaries of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Appellants, v. Edward O’REILLY, Successor Trustee, and Samantha Hale, Beneficiary of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Respondents.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 116
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 16,
reversed and remanded with instructions November 18, 1992,
reconsideration denied February 17,
petition for review denied April 20, 1993 (316 Or 142)
In the Matter of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased. Gladys L. ROSE and Jill M. Miller, Beneficiaries of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Appellants, v. Edward O’REILLY, Successor Trustee, and Samantha Hale, Beneficiary of the Estate of Everett W. Rose, Deceased, Respondents.
(50-88-05626; CA A72865)
841 P2d 3
K. Patrick Neill, Eugene, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Andrew G. Lewis and Hershner, Hunter, Moulton, Andrews & Neill, Eugene.
Paul D. Clayton, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent Edward O’Reilly. With him on the brief was Anderson & Clayton, Eugene.
No appearance for respondent Samantha Hale.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs, the wife and daughter of the trustor, appeal an order appointing respondent O'Reilly as successor trustee of two testamentary trusts. They assign error to the probate court's holding that daughter could not serve as trustee, because she was also a beneficiary of the same trusts. We reverse.
The trustor's will named the daughter as the successor trustee. After the original trustees resigned, the probate court refused to appoint her. The sole reason given for disqualifying her was that the same person cannot be both a beneficiary and a trustee. Oregon case law is clear that a person is not disqualified from acting as a trustee simply because that person is a trust beneficiary. Morse v. Paulson, 182 Or 111, 186 P2d 394 (1947); United Pacific Ins. Co. v. First National Bank of Oregon, 206 F Supp 94 (D Or 1962).
There being no other reason in the record to refuse to appoint the daughter, we direct the trial court to appoint her as successor trustee.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an order appointing Jill Miller as successor trustee if otherwise qualified.