Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am the primary beneficiary of a testamentary trust administered by Truist Bank ( Truist XXXX, XXXX, GA ), probated in Georgia. Beginning XX/XX/2026, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) committed multiple breaches of fiduciary duty including : ( 1 ) converting a single-quarter distribution request of {$12000.00} into an unauthorized annualized distribution of {$44000.00} without my knowledge, consent, or consultation despite my status as primary beneficiary ; ( 2 ) creating a 40 % Generation-Skipping Transfer tax liability for a XXXX secondary beneficiary with no plan for remediation ; ( 3 ) making and receiving calls with an unauthorized third party with no legal relationship to this trust in connection with a distribution decision ; ( 4 ) misrepresenting the governing trust document in official written correspondence ; and ( 5 ) failing to acknowledge a documented {$9400.00} reimbursement obligation despite written notice. Of particular concern is the unauthorized third-party contact. On or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX received an inbound call from an individual with no legal relationship to this trust or any of its beneficiaries. She then made an outbound call to this same individual on XX/XX/2026, leaving a voicemail in connection with a {$44000.00} distribution decision. In subsequent written correspondence, Truist described this individual as a relative. This characterization is factually false. Both of the secondary beneficiarys grandmothers are deceased, as documented in my written correspondence to Truist on XX/XX/2026. This individual is a family friend with no legal standing whatsoever, and she is prepared to provide a written statement confirming these contacts. The voicemail has been preserved. Critically, prior to this unauthorized third-party contact, XXXX XXXX written communications explicitly acknowledged my reimbursement obligation, offering in her XX/XX/XXXX email to the secondary beneficiary that funds could be issued to his mother to reimburse her for the payment she arranged to make. Following the unauthorized contact, her position reversed entirely. When I contacted her on XX/XX/XXXX to address concerns about the distribution structure, she asserted for the first time that I had no standing to question distribution decisions and that she would coordinate directly with the secondary beneficiary while keeping me informed only as appropriate. This reversal occurred immediately following unauthorized third-party contact and raises serious questions about whether that contact influenced her administration of this trust. This distribution also directly contradicts Truists own prior written position on this account. In prior administrations, Truist explicitly denied distributions for the secondary beneficiarys medical, dental, and general support expenses on the grounds that he is not a beneficiary who can receive direct distributions and that funds can not be issued to the primary beneficiary to pass to him. XXXX XXXX approval of {$44000.00} directly to the secondary beneficiary is irreconcilable with that prior position. The trust has never provided a legal interpretation explaining how both can be true. This incident is not isolated. This trust has been administered by Truist and its predecessor for approximately 18 years. During that period I have experienced repeated missed distributions, multiple advisor transitions with no institutional continuity, prior formal requests for trustee resignation, and a lawsuit by the testators estate against this trust, all documented. The testator was a XXXX and XXXX educated corporate attorney who drafted this governing document with specific intent. I am requesting that the CFPBs investigation include a review of whether Truist has been correctly interpreting and applying the governing document over the full course of its administration of this trust.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation