Case Name: In the MATTER OF AUGUST C. FUNKE TRUST. John Keller and William Keller, Appellants, v. Michael J. Healy, Katelyn C. Shamrell, and Jaclyn J. James, Respondents.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2019-03-13
Citations: 437 P.3d 313
Docket Number: A166155
Parties: In the MATTER OF AUGUST C. FUNKE TRUST.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 437
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
In the MATTER OF AUGUST C. FUNKE TRUST.
John Keller and William Keller, Appellants,
v.
Michael J. Healy, Katelyn C. Shamrell, and Jaclyn J. James, Respondents.
A166155
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted September 7, 2018.
March 13, 2019
Lawrence K. Peterson and Glazer, Maurer & Peterson, PC; and Michael A. Cox and Law Office of Michael A. Cox filed the briefs for appellants.
Michael J. Healy, Katelyn C. Shamrell, and Jaclyn J. James, pro se, filed the brief for respondents.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Trustees appeal a general judgment entered after the trial court ordered trustees to make distributions to beneficiaries from an educational trust and to personally reimburse the trust for the legal costs that beneficiaries incurred. On appeal, trustees initially raised four assignments of error, but later withdrew their second assignment of error. We reject without written discussion trustees' fourth assignment of error, writing only to address their first and third assignments of error.
In those two assignments, trustees request de novo review. However, this is not an exceptional case, and we decline to exercise our discretion to review under that standard. See ORS 19.415(3)(b) (the court has the discretion to apply de novo review in equitable actions); see also ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (providing that the court will exercise its discretion to review de novo "only in exceptional cases"). Because the resolution of this case in trustees' favor depends on us reviewing this case de novo and being persuaded that the evidence supports their contentions on appeal, and because we have declined to apply that standard, we affirm the trial court's ruling.
Affirmed.