Court Opinion

ID: 9644427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:55:58.914016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:13.476368
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent. The majority’s departure from the “ordinary prudent person” standard is completely unwarranted.
The auditing judge correctly decided that the evidence did not show that the trustee, Southeast National Bank, had extraordinary skill in administering estates or that it made such a representation to the settlor in being appointed as trustee. Absent such a representation that the trustee has extraordinary skill, the appropriate standard to be applied is whether the trustee exercised the skill and judgment which a prudent person under similar circumstances would exercise in connection with the management of his or her own estate. Mereto Estate, 373 Pa. 466, 96 A.2d 115 (1953). This standard is commonly known as the “ordinary prudent person” standard.
Although the majority agrees that the trustee did not represent to the settlor that it possessed extraordinary skills, the majority stretches this analysis to reach a desired result. The majority is remanding this appeal because the record shows that the trustee possesses “greater resources and skills than those of a ordinary individual trustee.” Page 954. A finding of liability must be imposed if on remand, the trustee has failed to use “greater resources and skills.” Id.
The majority’s standard incorporates a new and different element in determining whether the trustee possesses “greater resources.” This Court has never applied such an onerous burden upon corporate or individual trustees. See Killey Trust, (Concurring opinion of Roberts, J.) 457 Pa. 474, 326 A.2d 372 (1974).
*85Therefore, as the trustee in this appeal made no representation that it possessed extraordinary skills, liability should not be imposed.