Court Opinion

ID: 9905524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:09.520014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.240710
License: Public Domain

J-A23042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: TRUST OF ELEANOR M.                   :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  BULLOCK                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: ROSS BAXTER                       :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 348 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                              14 OC 2020

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                 FILED: NOVEMBER 28, 2023

       Appellant Ross Baxter appeals from the January 27, 2023, order entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County Orphans’ Court, which removed

him as a co-trustee of the Trust of Eleanor M. Bullock and denied his request

to remove the remaining co-trustees. After a careful review, we affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On December

17, 1998, the late Eleanor M. Bullock (“the Decedent”) executed an irrevocable

agreement of trust (“the Trust”) between her and her son, Wayne Bullock

(“Wayne”). The Trust owns approximately 100 acres of land with a house1

and a cabin in Westfield Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania (“the

Property”). The Trust instrument expresses the Decedent’s intent that the

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The house is used to generate rental income for the Trust.
J-A23042-23

Property be preserved for and used by Wayne, as well as six of the Decedent’s

grandsons: Noah W. Bullock (“Noah”), Zachary Bullock (“Zachary”), Benjamin

Bullock (“Benjamin”), Appellant Ross Baxter (“Ross”), Samuel R. Moyer

(“Samuel”), and Lloyd Moyer (“Lloyd”).2 Further, the Trust instrument named

Wayne as the original trustee; however, the Trust provided that, as each of

the Decedent’s six grandsons, who were named as beneficiaries, reached the

age of thirty years, they could elect to become co-trustees.

       Ross turned thirty years old in March of 2010, and on or about April 15,

2010, he provided notice to Respondents of his election of appointment as a

co-trustee. Thereafter, on February 13, 2020, Ross filed a “petition for citation

to show cause why Respondents should not produce documents, trust assets

should not be deposited in a Trust account with withdrawals prohibited, and

Wayne Bullock be removed as a co-trustee.”

       On February 21, 2020, the Orphans’ Court filed an order for citation

directing a rule to show cause as to why the relief should not be granted, and

on April 16, 2020, Respondents filed a preliminary objection seeking a more

specific pleading. By order entered on April 27, 2020, the Orphans’ Court

directed Ross to file a more specific pleading.

       On June 15, 2020, Ross filed an “amended petition to compel production

of documents, for removal of trustee, and for reimbursement of expenses and

____________________________________________

2 Wayne, along with Noah, Zachary, Benjamin, Samuel, and Lloyd shall be
referred to collectively as Respondents. As discussed infra, Ross commenced
the instant litigation.

                                           -2-
J-A23042-23

attorneys’ fees.” Therein, Ross requested the Orphans’ Court compel Wayne

to produce a copy of the insurance policy for the Property, direct the rents and

royalties paid to the Trust be frozen until further order of the court, order

reimbursement to Ross for expenses he incurred in making repairs to the

Property, and direct the Trust to pay Ross’s attorneys’ fees. Further, Ross

sought a declaratory judgment regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the

Trust instrument as it relates to the maintenance of the Property, and he

sought the removal of Respondents as co-trustees.

      Eventually, the parties reached an agreement regarding the claims

raised in Ross’s amended petition.     Accordingly, on October 1, 2020, the

Orphans’ Court filed a stipulated and a supplemental stipulated order resolving

the claims.

      Specifically, the Orphans’ Court’s stipulated order relevantly provided:

      1.    Necessary repair will be made on the shower and porch of
      the cabin, one of the two buildings on the subject property, and
      will be the subject of estimates to be obtained by [Ross], said
      estimates to be then forwarded to all interested parties for
      approval.
      2.     The Trust account will maintain a MINIMUM BALANCE of
      $5,000.00 for repair and maintenance of the buildings on the
      Property, same to be replaced in accordance with the Trust terms
      if the balance falls below that number.
      3.   The Trust account will include preliminarily all house rental
      income received.
      4.    [Ross] will receive $3,000.00 from the Trust by way of
      reimbursement for monies expended on behalf of the Trust for
      maintenance and repair. [Ross] will also submit receipts for any
      additional sums claimed up to a maximum of $3,200.00, the same
      to cover only materials utilized by [Ross].

                                     -3-
J-A23042-23

      5.   For future maintenance and repairs, parties will obtain
      estimates and submit them to the co-trustees for approval.
      6.    Parties all agree that all of the trustees will meet either in
      person or by some other electronic means yearly to discuss any
      and all issues relating to the subject corpus of the Trust.
      7.     Parties have approved this stipulation, and the Court
      APPROVES it as an ORDER resolving certain of the issues raised in
      this case.

Orphans’ Court’s Stipulated Order, dated 10/1/20 (capitalization for emphasis

in original).

      Further, the Orphans’ Court’s supplemental stipulated Order relevantly

provided:

      1.   Parties agree the Court can lift the stay on the joint bank
      account at PNC Bank, as well as lift the stay on a new account.
      2.     Parties agree that the declaration action that was brought
      in the Amended [Petition]…, the understanding of the Trust terms,
      section 6, regarding distribution of monies that the Trust earns
      will be interpreted according to the Amended Petition.
      Specifically, being that the Trust requires the co-trustees to first
      use any monies generated by the Trust or the Property for
      maintenance, and only after that can it be used for income
      distribution to the beneficiaries in equal shares; and maintenance
      is the preservation of the status quo or restoration to approximate
      original condition.
      3.    Parties have agreed that the fees of Peter Klenk can be
      reimbursed in the amount of $6,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, and the
      fees of William Casey, likewise, in the amount of $6,000.00, can
      be reimbursed from the Trust.
      4.     Parties have agreed that a proper Trust account will be
      opened at the Newtown Bank & Trust Company, provided that it
      is able to provide the services as outlined in the agreement that
      the parties have all agreed to. The proper Trust account will be
      understood as a Fiduciary account registered under the EIN of the
      Trust. The titling of the account will be the Trust and the co-
      trustees.    The account that is opened will allow for three
      individuals to be signators on checks, with those people being

                                     -4-
J-A23042-23

       Wayne Bullock, Ross Baxter, and then a third co-trustee to be
       elected by the seven co-trustees. Those three individuals will
       have check writing authority; however, all the checks will have to
       be signed by two of the three individuals to be valid checks.
       5.     Parties agree that of the various distributions that have been
       agreed to, both in the Stipulated Order, as well as this
       supplemental agreement, that those distributions will all be made,
       and the items to be paid will all be paid for BEFORE any income
       distributions can be made to the beneficiaries. The repayment
       before any distributions does not include the additional possible
       reimbursement above the $3,000.00.
       6.      It has been agreed by the parties that the Trust will have
       the Property mowed and cleared at least three times per year so
       it is accessible to all of the co-trustees, whether it be by someone
       doing it for free or by paying someone, the Trust will see that it is
       done as part of the routine maintenance.
           Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the supplemental stipulation
       of the parties, and all matters raised in the petition will be deemed
       RESOLVED.

Orphans’      Court’s    Supplemental          Stipulated   Order,   dated   10/1/20

(capitalization for emphasis in original).3

       On February 22, 2022, Ross filed a “petition of Ross Baxter for a citation

directed to all co-trustees to show cause why an order should not be entered

for removal of all beneficiaries/co-trustees as co-trustees and appointment of

new trustee pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766.”               Therein, Ross specifically

requested the: “(1) removal of all beneficiaries/co-trustees as co-trustee,

including [Ross], of the…Trust; (2) appointment of Larry Bullock as Trustee of

____________________________________________

3 As is evident by the Orphans’ Court’s stipulated order and supplemental
stipulated order, the co-trustees were not removed as requested in Ross’s
amended petition.

                                           -5-
J-A23042-23

the…Trust; or, in the alternative, (3) appointment of a Corporate Trustee of

the…Trust.” Ross’s Petition, filed 2/22/22, at 1.

      Ross averred the co-trustees’ lack of cooperation had impaired the

administration of the Trust, and their refusal to properly maintain the Property

was inconsistent with the stated purpose of the Trust: for the Property to be

used for “wholesome recreational purposes as it had been used by [Decedent]

and [her] late husband.” Id. at 6. In this vein, Ross averred that, although

paragraph 1 of the stipulated order provides that Ross would obtain estimates

for the necessary repairs to the cabin’s shower and porch, other co-trustees

obtained estimates and then unilaterally approved the work, which was

completed in an unworkmanlike fashion without compliance to the building

codes.

      Moreover, Ross averred that, although paragraph 6 of the supplemental

stipulated order provides the Property is to be mowed and cleared at least

three times per year, the Trust failed to perform these duties. Ross averred

he used his own time and money to mow the Property, and the Trust refused

to reimburse him accordingly. Also, he averred that, although paragraph 2 of

the supplemental stipulated order provides that distributions of Trust income

will occur only after payment is made for the maintenance of the Property, the

co-trustees have continued to distribute Trust income without making the

necessary maintenance payments.

                                     -6-
J-A23042-23

      Ross asserted that Wayne’s brother, Larry Bullock (“Larry”), who is not

a beneficiary of the Trust, is willing and available to serve as the trustee. Thus,

Ross requested the Orphans’ Court appoint Larry as the sole trustee.

Alternatively, Ross requested the Orphans’ Court appoint a corporate trustee

as the sole trustee.

      The Orphans’ Court filed an order for citation directing a rule to show

cause as to why the relief should not be granted, and on April 29, 2022,

Respondents filed an answer with new matter in opposition to Ross’s petition.

Respondents averred the cabin, which is an expanded chicken coop, has been

used primarily by the family as a deer hunting camp, and it is being maintained

as such by the Trust. Respondents averred Ross refuses to cooperate with

Respondents as co-trustees and seeks sole control over the Property, which

results in unnecessary litigation and fees.           Accordingly, Respondents

requested that Ross be removed as a co-trustee with the other co-trustees

remaining intact.

      On July 13, 2022, October 28, 2022, and January 19, 2023, the

Orphans’ Court held hearings on the matter. Relevantly, Ross testified he is

a beneficiary of the Trust, as well as a co-trustee along with his uncle, Wayne,

and five cousins. N.T., 7/13/22, at 4. He indicated that he visits the Property

two or three times per year, and the primary purpose of the Property is for

“recreation.” Id. at 5. He testified “we go there, we hunt, we shoot, fish in

the pond.” Id. Referencing the Trust instrument, Ross testified the purpose

                                       -7-
J-A23042-23

of the Trust is to use the Property “[f]or wholesome recreational purposes as

it had been used by them and [the Decedent’s] late husband, Joseph Bullock,

during his lifetime.” Id. at 6.

      Ross testified that, per the court’s stipulated order, Ross was to secure

quotes for cabin repairs, and Ross did so. Id. Ross testified he emailed the

quotes to the other co-trustees; however, the other co-trustees acquired their

own quote from Bill Christ (“Mr. Christ”), who worked on the cabin’s shower,

floors, and front porch. Id. at 7-8. Ross noted he was dissatisfied with Mr.

Christ’s work. Id. at 8. When he expressed his dissatisfaction, the co-trustees

“reclassified the cabin under the cabin exemption so they didn’t have to qualify

for the Pennsylvania Building Code.” Id.

      Ross testified he mowed the Property, and when he asked for

reimbursement, he was told by the co-trustees that he was not entitled to

reimbursement. Id. at 10. He confirmed he received a check for $6,000.00

from the Trust account for expenses he had incurred to repair the cabin’s roof,

as well as his attorneys’ fees. Id.   Ross testified he was not in favor of the

Trust entering into leases with oil and gas companies for the Property. Id. at

11. He testified the purpose of the Trust was not to provide a financial benefit

for the beneficiaries, and the leases “complicated” the situation between the

co-trustees. Id. He also noted that income from the oil and gas leases is

distributed to the beneficiaries monthly, and he believes the income should be

held in the Trust account to ensure it is being used primarily for maintenance

                                      -8-
J-A23042-23

of the Property.    Id. at 12.    Ross opined the “other trustees’ primary

motivation is to create income distributable to them.” Id. at 15.

      Ross confirmed he does not agree with the other co-trustees as to how

the Trust is being administered. Id. at 12.    He noted that, besides himself,

Zachary is the other co-trustee who uses the Property regularly. Id. He noted

that Ken Tombs has rented the house on the Property since the mid-1990’s,

and he pays $350.00 a month in rent. Id. Ross has “no idea” whether this is

a fair market value for the rent. Id.

      Ross indicated the co-trustees had a yearly meeting via email, and

Wayne deemed this to be the annual meeting. Id. at 14. Ross testified that

additional repairs are needed to the Property. Id. at 16. Specifically, the

cabin’s driveway, porch, plumbing, and oven need to be repaired. Id. Ross

admitted that some of the other co-trustees have acknowledged repairs are

needed; however, they want Mr. Christ to make the repairs, but Ross does

not agree with their choice for a contractor. Id. at 20.

      Ross testified he has informed the other co-trustees that he prefers the

income from the oil and gas leases be used to make repairs instead of

distributing the money to the co-trustees. Id. at 16. However, the other co-

trustees have responded negatively. Id. at 17. He notes the other co-trustees

call the cabin a “flop house” or “chicken coop,” but he notes the Decedent did

not view the cabin in such a manner. Id.

                                        -9-
J-A23042-23

     Ross indicated his ability to administer the Trust is substantially

impaired because of the disagreements he has with the other co-trustees

regarding the maintenance of the Property. Id. at 18. He would prefer that

his uncle, Larry, or some other third party serve as the sole trustee with all

present co-trustees remaining as beneficiaries only. Id. at 17-18.

     On cross-examination, Ross admitted the Trust account has maintained

a minimum balance of $5,000.00 as directed by the Orphans’ Court’s

stipulated order. Id. at 23. However, Ross testified income distributions were

made to the beneficiaries before all maintenance was completed. Id. at 24.

He admitted the cabin’s porch was repaired, but he disputed whether the

repairs were adequate. Id. He admitted he informed Wayne that he didn’t

mind the other co-trustees getting estimates to repair the cabin’s shower and

porch; however, after Mr. Christ completed the work, Ross was dissatisfied

with the quality of the work. Id. at 25-26.

     Ross admitted Mr. Christ added a railing to the porch; however, Ross

contended it was more like a barrier than a railing under the Pennsylvania

State Building Code. Id. at 26. Ross admitted that, when he received a tax

form that contained an incorrect year for the Property, instead of contacting

Wayne, he called his attorney. Id. at 29-30.

     Ross testified the Trust became effective in 1998, and Ross did not

become a co-trustee until 2010. Id. at 32. He admitted Wayne “took care of

everything up until” Ross became a co-trustee, and “there were no problems.”

                                    - 10 -
J-A23042-23

Id. Ross admitted the other co-trustees get along fine, take care of problems,

and maintain a minimum of $5,000.00 in the Trust account. Id. However,

he still objects to the co-trustees administering the Trust because he is

dissatisfied with the quality of Mr. Christ’s work, and Mr. Christ was selected

by a majority of the co-trustees. Id. at 33. Further, Ross objects because he

believes the co-trustees are only interested in making a profit off the Property

and not enjoying it as the Decedent intended. Id. at 34. Ross admitted he

believes the other co-trustees’ motives are not “pure,” so he will never be

satisfied until a thirty party is appointed as the sole trustee. Id.

      Ross admitted that, if any of the co-trustees want to communicate with

him, they must contact his lawyer. Id. at 35. He admitted this procedure

results in extra time and expense for the co-trustees, but since he doesn’t

agree with the co-trustees on issues, it is necessary. Id.

      On redirect-examination, Ross confirmed he does not get along with the

other co-trustees.   Id.   Ross testified he does not dispute the amount of

income coming into the Trust account; however, he disagrees with the money

being distributed to the beneficiaries instead of being spent on the Property.

Id. at 45.

      Zachary testified he has been a co-trustee since 2008, and he visits the

cabin a couple of times each year. N.T., 10/28/22, at 8. He testified the

purpose of the Trust is to preserve the Property for "wholesome enjoyment,

recreational enjoyment.” Id. at 8-9.

                                      - 11 -
J-A23042-23

      Zachary indicated he contracted with Mr. Christ to perform maintenance

at the Property. Id. at 9. He noted that all co-trustees, except Ross, find Mr.

Christ’s work to be satisfactory, and Mr. Christ is reliable.         Id. at 19.

Specifically, Mr. Christ completed work to the cabin’s porch, floor, and

plumbing. Id. at 9. Mr. Christ installed a new shower, fixed windows, mowed

the lawn, repaired the driveway, and completed electrical work. Id. Zachary

testified he inspected the repairs made by Mr. Christ, and none of the repairs

were substandard. Id.

      He noted Mr. Christ installed parts of new floor joists, which he “sistered”

against existing floor joists. Id. at 12.     He also installed a railing on the

cabin’s porch, to which Ross objected. Id. Zachary testified the co-trustees

voted on how to have the repairs done, and all agreed except Ross. Id. at

13. He admitted Ross wanted to have repairs done to the cabin’s upstairs

porch, but Mr. Christ concluded the upstairs porch was “sound,” so all co-

trustees, except Ross, decided against the repairs. Id. at 15.

      Zachary indicated that, after the Orphans’ Court filed the stipulated

order and supplemental stipulated order, the Trust signed a contract with Mr.

Christ to mow the Property six or seven times per year. Id. at 10. Zachary

testified that, with the permission of a majority of the co-trustees, the Trust

entered into oil and gas leases with companies. Id. at 17. He indicated Ross

initially indicated he was in favor of the leases, but he then changed his mind.

Id. He noted the oil and gas leases produce income, and money is distributed

                                     - 12 -
J-A23042-23

monthly to the beneficiaries after maintenance costs for the Property are

deducted. Id. at 18, 25.

      He testified that the co-trustees act “on a majority vote.” Id. at 18-19.

Zachary acknowledged Ross is not satisfied with Mr. Christ or his work;

however, Zachary indicated the Trust continues to hire him because “the

remainder of the [co-trustees] are happy with [Mr. Christ’s] work.” Id. at 24.

He noted that, although Ross has asked for the Trust to hire a new contractor

to “fix” alleged problems with Mr. Christ’s work, a majority of the co-trustees

have voted “no” because they are satisfied with Mr. Christ’s work. Id. at 25.

Zachary indicated the cabin has “always been a cabin,” but a majority of the

co-trustees filed the necessary paperwork to officially have it classified as a

cabin for purposes of the Building Code. Id. He admitted Ross was not in

favor of this decision. Id.

      Zachary testified Ross has requested that all income generated from the

Property remain in the Trust account. Id. at 27. Zachary testified that, per

the Orphans’ Court’s prior orders, the Trust maintains a minimum of

$5,000.00 in the account to cover maintenance and repairs, and Zachary

indicated this is sufficient. Id. He noted Ross disagrees with Zachary as to

what repairs are classified as “maintenance” for the Property. Id. Zachary

indicated “I would say there’s a substantial disagreement between [Ross] and

the rest of the co-trustees, as like a normal operation.” Id.

                                    - 13 -
J-A23042-23

      Zachary noted that Ross agreed to have certain painting done on the

rental house until Ross discovered Mr. Christ would be doing the painting. Id.

Zachary testified that most of the time Ross does not offer an alternate

contractor, so “everyone votes yes, [Ross] says no,” and Mr. Christ performs

the work on the Property. Id. Zachary noted that, since Ross demands that

all communication between him and the other co-trustees flows through legal

counsel, it is difficult to give Ross time to get quotes from other contractors

to perform the repairs to the Property. Id. at 29.

      Zachary testified annual meetings among the co-trustees occur via

email. Id. at 30. He indicated that emailing is efficient for the co-trustees and

provides a written record. Id. at 31. Given the relationship of the parties,

Zachary opined that “real time communication” would not benefit the co-

trustees. Id. at 36.

      Zachary testified the Trust has an accountant, who files the taxes. Id.

at 40. He testified that Ross has created disputes about the income, which is

generated by the Property. Id. Specifically, Ross objects to the distribution

of income to the co-trustees/beneficiaries in lieu of maintaining all of the

income in the Trust account for repairs to the Property. Id. at 41. Zachary

noted his mother, who is not a co-trustee, helps with the bookkeeping for the

Trust, and all co-trustees, except for Ross, are happy for her assistance. Id.

at 42. Zachary opined the Trust is being effectively managed. Id. at 43. He

                                     - 14 -
J-A23042-23

opined the existing legal proceedings are due to one co-trustee, namely Ross,

being “unhappy.” Id.

      Zachary testified he is not in favor of a third party acting as the sole

trustee, and “nobody except for [Ross] wants that.” Id. at 44. He indicated

a third-party trustee is unnecessary, and he opined that Ross “only wants that

because now he’s put himself in a place where he feels like everyone is out to

get him, and he is one vote among seven. And I think that he thinks, that if

there was a third party, that perhaps he would have more sway or control.”

Id. Zachary noted that, if the Decedent wanted a third party to manage the

Trust, as opposed to her son and grandsons, the Trust instrument would have

so provided. Id. at 45. Zachary further noted the Trust runs by a majority

vote among the co-trustees, which is how it was set up to operate. Id.

      On cross-examination, Zachary indicated the Trust deals with repairs on

an as needed basis and, if the repairs were to run beyond the $5,000.00 in

the Trust account, the co-trustees would have to pay the difference. Id. at

51. He noted a majority of the co-trustees must give approval before any

repair is made. Id.

      Upon questioning by the court, Zachary indicated he and Ross are the

only co-trustees who regularly visit and stay at the cabin. Id. at 58. He noted

some of the other co-trustees have visited in recent years, but they don’t stay

overnight at the cabin. Id.

                                    - 15 -
J-A23042-23

         Larry, who is the son of the Decedent, testified he is not a named

beneficiary of the Trust. Id. at 59. He has visited the Property approximately

eight times in his life. Id. He would be willing to serve as the trustee without

any financial compensation, and, in his opinion, he has no adverse relationship

with any of the co-trustees/beneficiaries. Id. at 60. If named the trustee, he

would conduct meetings with the beneficiaries via Zoom.          Id. at 62.   He

indicated that, from his understanding, the Decedent gifted the Property to

her grandchildren for them to enjoy.          Id. at 60.   “They are to keep it

maintained and pass it on to the next generation…[s]o that it would remain in

the family to be enjoyed by them[.]” Id.

         He noted the cabin “started out as [his] dad’s hunting camp,…and over

the years it progressed and grew into a proper building.” Id. at 60-61. He

indicated that during summers his parents would take the grandchildren to

the cabin, and they would spend a couple of weeks maintaining it, visiting the

sites in the area, and enjoying the carnivals. Id. Larry testified that, during

the Decedent’s lifetime, there were no oil and gas leases on the Property. Id.

at 62.

         On cross-examination, Larry testified the last time he visited the

Property was two or three years ago with his adult son, who is not a

beneficiary of the Trust. Id. at 63. When asked whether Larry is aware that

his brother, Wayne, does not want Larry to be the trustee, Larry responded

he “was never told that, but it doesn’t surprise [him].” Id. at 65. He reiterated

                                     - 16 -
J-A23042-23

that he would be willing to serve as the trustee, but if he isn’t allowed to do

so, that is fine with him, as well. Id.

      Wayne, who was the sole trustee of the Property until 2005, testified

that, as it relates to future repairs, the plan is for the co-trustees to vote

whether it is appropriate to appoint Mr. Christ “as a maintenance man to make

monthly inspections of the [P]roperty, and to keep [the beneficiaries] updated

on it. The [P]roperty is vacant eleven and a half months a year.” Id. at 76.

Wayne noted there are monthly bills, for which the co-trustees budget, and

pursuant to the Orphans’ Court’s orders, the Trust account maintains a

minimum balance of $5,000.00 for repairs and maintenance. Id at 77.

      Regarding the oil and gas leases on the Property, Wayne indicated he

was one of the signatories of the leases on behalf of the majority of the co-

trustees. Id. at 78. Royalty checks from the leases are made payable to “The

Estate of Eleanor M. Bullock.” Id. He noted he makes copies of the royalty

checks, and they are available for any beneficiary to view. Id. at 79. The

Trust distributes income monthly to beneficiaries, in part, because it is easier

for bookkeeping purposes. Id. at 88.

      He indicated he is the primary bookkeeper for the Trust, but his wife

assists him since he has developed difficulty with writing.      Id. at 80. He

testified he has asked the other co-trustees to take over the bookkeeping

duties for the Trust; however, they have requested Wayne, who is their uncle,

continue to do so.      Id.   He testified he would have passed over the

                                     - 17 -
J-A23042-23

bookkeeping duties to Ross if he wanted the duties; however, Ross never

asked. Id at 81. He admitted he never personally asked Ross if he wanted

the bookkeeping duties since Ross demands that all communication occur

through an attorney. Id. He noted that, since 1998, he has “spent thousands

of hours on Trust things.” Id.

      Wayne acknowledged that Ross is dissatisfied with the repairs, which

have been made to the cabin. Id. He acknowledged Ross would have made

the repairs in a different manner, including as it relates to the joists under the

porch. Id. at 85. However, Wayne indicated he and the remaining co-trustees

are satisfied with the quality of the repairs. Id. Wayne testified Mr. Christ was

“highly recommended” to him, and he is glad the Trust found him to do the

work for the Property. Id. at 82. He indicated that any beneficiary/co-trustee

is “welcome” to provide other estimates for repairs, and it’s “always been

[that] way.” Id. at 83. He acknowledged Ross is dissatisfied with the idea of

the Trust hiring Mr. Christ to manage the Property; however, in Wayne’s

opinion “[Ross] will never be happy.” Id. at 91.

      Wayne testified that, in his opinion, the yearly email exchange has been

working satisfactorily for required yearly meetings among the co-trustees. Id.

at 83. Aside from Ross, no one has complained. Id. He noted that in-person

discussions would be difficult with Ross since the co-trustees can only

communicate with him through an attorney. Id.

                                     - 18 -
J-A23042-23

      Wayne indicated he used to get along with Ross “just fine,” but Ross

“has taken a different route in his life which is unfortunate, and [Ross] has

chose[n] not to talk to [the co-trustees], it was his choice.” Id. at 88. Wayne

testified Ross was the last beneficiary to be named as a co-trustee and, prior

to this, there was no problem with the administration of the Trust. Id. at 91.

He noted that, prior to Ross becoming a co-trustee, Ross got along with

everyone; however, now “Ross wants to rule.” Id.        He noted that Ross is

seeking to have Larry appointed as the trustee because Ross and Larry have

“the same mindset.” Id. at 92. Wayne testified he is not in favor of a third-

party trustee since, per the express language of the Trust, it was not the

Decedent’s wish. Id. at 90.

      Nicholas Granja testified that he has visited the Property many times

during the past twelve years as Ross’s guest, and the cabin has deteriorated.

Id. at 95. Mr. Granja is a licensed contractor, and in his opinion, the repairs

to the cabin’s porch were not done correctly. Id. at 97. Also, he noted the

new porch railing “doesn’t meet uniform building code[s]” in that there are

openings greater than four inches and the posts are not mounted with

mechanical fasteners. Id. He noted the upper balcony needs to be repaired

so that it doesn’t collapse. Id. at 99.

      On cross-examination, Mr. Granja agreed that he wasn’t sure what the

code requirements are for a building classified as a “cabin.” Id. at 101. He

indicated he assisted Ross in replacing a portion of the cabin’s roof, and he

                                     - 19 -
J-A23042-23

has “no idea” whether Ross secured a building permit for the work. Id. Mr.

Granja admitted the added railing is better than having no railing; however,

he reiterated the railing does not comply with building code regulations. Id.

at 102.

      Mr. Granja testified that the cabin is “dated” and “rustic.” Id. at 103.

He noted the right side of the existing cabin used to be a chicken coop, but

Ross’s grandfather added a kitchen to it and then later built a two-story

addition with a porch. Id.

      Mr. Christ testified he lives in the town where the Property is located.

Id. at 104. He testified he has been working in construction since 1982, and

he is registered with the Pennsylvania Builders’ Association. Id.at 105. Mr.

Christ confirmed he submitted to the co-trustees an estimate to perform

repairs to the cabin. Id. at 106. He explained that he attached sister joists to

the existing porch boards so that the entire porch did not need to be replaced.

Id. He noted “sistering” involves attaching a new board to a rotting board in

order to extend the life of a structure. Id. Mr. Christ opined that the cabin is

“safe to standards of building.” Id. at 108. He specifically opined the porch is

safe for its intended purpose. Id. He noted he added a railing to the porch

to help prevent people from falling off the porch in the dark. Id.

      Mr. Christ confirmed he replaced flooring in the “chicken coop” portion

of the cabin, replaced the shower, and mowed the Property. Id. at 109. He

also assisted in repairing the septic at the rental house during the Fourth of

                                     - 20 -
J-A23042-23

July weekend. Id. at 110. Mr. Christ testified he would be willing to check

the Property periodically and perform maintenance on it. Id. at 112.

     On cross-examination, Mr. Christ confirmed he spoke to Zachary about

completing the porch repairs. Id. He indicated he has never spoken to Ross.

Id. Rather, he discusses possible repairs with Zachary with the aim of making

the structure “safe,” and from his understanding, Zachary then discusses the

possible repairs with the co-trustees. Id. at 113-17. Mr. Christ opined that,

given the rustic nature of the cabin, it would be “very expensive” to bring

everything “up to code.” Id. at 115.

     Samuel testified he is a co-trustee, and he found Mr. Christ’s repairs to

the cabin to be satisfactory. N.T., 1/19/23, at 3-4. He indicated Mr. Christ

made “general improvements that were in keeping with the budget, the

quality, and the character of the cabin” as agreed to among a majority of the

co-trustees. Id. at 4-5. He noted he visited the cabin with his grandparents

when he was a teenager, and his grandparents would ask him to complete

different types of repairs in keeping with the character of the cabin.    Id.

Samuel testified the cabin began as a chicken coop, which his grandfather

then turned into a hunting cabin. Id. at 6. His grandparents later added on

to the chicken coop, and the existing co-trustees made repairs and

improvements thereto. Id. at 7-8.

     Samuel testified he became a co-trustee in 2005, and prior to the Trust

signing oil and gas leases, the co-trustees carried the costs of maintenance,

                                    - 21 -
J-A23042-23

insurance, and taxes on the Property with no expectation of income. Id. at

10. He noted that, when the Trust was originally approached by oil and gas

companies to lease the Property, the co-trustees refused to lease the Property.

Id. However, when it became clear the neighbors were going to lease their

properties, and the oil and gas companies would remove the resources

horizontally from beneath the Property without any compensation to the Trust,

the co-trustees, who at the time were solely Wayne and Samuel, entered into

oil and gas leases for the Property. Id.

      On cross-examination, Samuel testified the budget of the Trust is

generally what the co-trustees are “willing and able to spend.” Id. at 14. He

indicated that each co-trustee uses his own personal money to make repairs,

pay the insurance, and pay the taxes on the Property. Id. He clarified that,

if a bill or repair is needed beyond the amount kept in the Trust account,

Wayne circulates the bill, and the co-trustees pay an equal share to make up

the difference. Id. at 14-15.

      He noted that, prior to the Trust signing the gas and oil leases, he and

Wayne, the only co-trustees at the time, paid for all expenses for the Property

from their personal accounts. Id. at 15. He indicated the Trust signed the oil

and gas leases seven years ago, and even since that time, he has put personal

funds into the Trust account for maintenance and repairs. Id.

      Samuel indicated he has no concerns over the taxes of the Trust, and

the co-trustees meet annually via email.     Id. at 17-18. He acknowledged

                                    - 22 -
J-A23042-23

Ross asked for the meetings to be “live,” but a majority of the co-trustees

voted against the request. Id. at 18. He noted Ross has asked for many

repairs to the cabin; however, since Ross is “suing [the co-trustees they’ve]

had a very hard time making the necessary arrangements to make any repairs

or changes that need to be made.” Id. at 19. He indicated the Trust operates

upon a vote by a “majority of the Trustees.” Id. at 20.

     Samuel testified the co-trustees “are all interested in keeping the cabin

at or above the standard that [their] grandfather set and maintained for the

cabin.” Id. at 21. He specifically denied he was more interested in receiving

an economic benefit from the Property as opposed to maintaining the cabin

as the Decedent and his grandfather would have wanted. Id. He noted the

“guidelines” for maintenance are engraved “in the hearts” of the co-trustees

and passed down from their grandfather. Id.

     On redirect-examination, Samuel indicated the house rental income

from the Property is not distributed to the co-trustees but is deposited into

the Trust account. Id. at 23.   Samuel noted that some repairs have been

“placed on the back burner” because the co-trustees have been “consumed”

with preparing for the “legal fight” initiated by Ross.   Id. at 24.   Samuel

specifically denied Respondents have breached any fiduciary duties to the

Trust. Id. at 25.

     Lloyd testified he concurs with the testimony of Samuel, who is his

brother. Id. at 28. He indicated he became a co-trustee in 2007, and he has

                                   - 23 -
J-A23042-23

received distributions from the oil and gas leases. Id. at 29. He testified that

to his knowledge all necessary repairs have been made to the Property, and

he has reimbursed Ross for repairs that Ross made to the cabin. Id. at 30.

He denied that any of Ross’s demands for repayment had been ignored by the

Trust. Id. He noted it is his understanding that any co-trustee can examine

the Trust’s financial records at any time, but he hasn’t felt the need to do so.

Id. at 32.

      Lloyd indicated he would have been “fine” with in-person annual

meetings; however, since a majority of co-trustees voted to conduct email

meetings, he was “fine” with that, as well. Id. at 33. He indicated the issue

wasn’t that important to him, so he voted with the majority. Id. at 42. He

testified the Trust operates by a majority vote. Id. at 36. He noted his vote

has never been “courted” by the others. Id.

      Lloyd indicated his grandfather had several unwritten customs, and the

co-trustees have generally followed the customs, although Ross has not

always agreed with the majority. Id. at 34-35. For example, his grandfather

always gave the renter of the Property’s rental home one free month of rent,

and the majority of the co-trustees, excluding Ross, voted to continue this

custom.      Id.   Ross indicated the Trust shouldn’t take such action until

“litigation is over.” Id. at 35.

      On cross-examination, Lloyd admitted he has not used the Property

often over the last twenty years for “enjoyment,” but he “can’t speak to what

                                     - 24 -
J-A23042-23

will happen in the next twenty.” Id. at 37.     He noted he hasn’t spoken to

Ross lately because he has been instructed to do so only through Ross’s

attorney. Id. at 39. Regarding votes on repairs, he noted he is not a builder,

so when it is time to vote on whether a repair is needed to the cabin, he relies

on the expertise of his brother, Samuel, who is a well-experienced builder. Id.

at 41. He noted he receives monthly bank statements from the Trust account.

Id. at 44.

      At the conclusion of all testimony, Ross’s attorney informed the Orphans’

Court that Ross was seeking to have a disinterested third party named as a

sole Trustee with all existing co-trustees removed from the Trust. Id. at 48.

Ross’s attorney suggested the court appoint either a relative, who is not a

named beneficiary, or a corporate trustee, who would charge a fee. Id. at

47.

      Respondents’ attorney, on the other hand, suggested the only co-

trustee who should be removed is Ross. Id. at 50. Respondents’ attorney

noted Ross volunteered to remove himself via his own petition.              Id.

Respondents’ attorney noted Ross should remain as a beneficiary to enjoy the

Property as intended by the Trust; however, he should be removed as a co-

trustee because he engages in excessive litigation and refuses to cooperate

with the other co-trustees in any manner. Id.

      Thereafter, by order entered on January 27, 2023, the Orphans’ Court

directed that Ross be removed as co-trustee of the Trust pursuant to 20

                                     - 25 -
J-A23042-23

Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b)(2). Specifically, the Orphans’ Court indicated that Ross’s

“lack of cooperation” with the other co-trustees “substantially impairs the

administration of the Trust.”         Orphans’ Court’s Order, filed 1/27/23. The

Orphans’ Court noted that Ross remained as a beneficiary of the Trust. The

remaining co-trustees remained intact. On February 28, 2023, Ross filed a

notice of appeal from the Orphans’ Court’s final order,4 and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925

requirements have been met.

       On appeal, Ross sets forth the following issues in his “Statement of

Questions Involved” (verbatim):

       1.   Did the lower court err as a matter of law and/or otherwise
       abuse its discretion in removing [Ross] as Trustee?
       2.    Did the lower court err as a matter of law and/or otherwise
       abuse its discretion in not removing [Respondents] as co-
       trustees?

____________________________________________

4 We note the Orphans’ Court filed its order on January 27, 2023, and Ross

filed his notice of appeal thirty-two days thereafter, on February 28, 2023.
Generally, an appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of the
order appealed from, and an untimely appeal may be quashed by this Court.
See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). However, our Supreme Court has held that the thirty-
day appeal period does not begin to run until the prothonotary enters the
order on the docket with the required notation that it gave appropriate notice
to counsel and unrepresented parties. See Frazier v. City of Philadelphia,
735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999). See also Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.6 (requiring the clerk of
orphans’ court to immediately give written notice of entry of order and note
in docket date notice given). This holding in Frazier is a “bright-line rule to
be interpreted strictly.” In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 509 (Pa.Super. 2007). In
the case sub judice, there was no corresponding entry on the docket, and,
thus, formal entry of the order did not occur under the rules. Accordingly, we
shall proceed to examine the merits of Ross’s appeal.

                                          - 26 -
J-A23042-23

Ross’s Brief at 4 (suggested answers omitted).

      Ross’s issues are intertwined. Ross contends there is insufficient

evidence to sustain the Orphans’ Court’s removal of him solely as a trustee

under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b). Rather, he suggests the evidence reveals the

Orphans’ Court should have removed all co-trustees while providing for the

appointment of a disinterested third-party trustee.

      In this vein, Ross contends the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate

that removal of him solely as a co-trustee is in the best interests of the Trust’s

beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with the Trust’s material purpose of

preserving the Property for wholesome, recreational enjoyment. He contends

he proved a suitable third-party trustee is available.

      He further posits the Orphans’ Court erroneously dismissed him solely

as a co-trustee based on Subsection 7766(b)(2). He suggests the evidence is

insufficient to demonstrate that he alone is responsible for the lack of

cooperation   among     the    co-trustees,    which   substantially   impairs   the

administration of the trust.

      “When reviewing [an order] entered by the orphans’ court, this Court

must determine whether the record is free from legal error and the court’s

factual findings are supported by the evidence.” In re Cohen, 188 A.3d 1208,

1210 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation and brackets omitted).

      The findings of a judge of the orphans’ court division, sitting
      without a jury, must be accorded the same weight and effect as
      the verdict of a jury, and will not be reversed by an appellate court
      in the absence of an abuse of discretion or a lack of evidentiary

                                      - 27 -
J-A23042-23

     support. This rule is particularly applicable to findings of fact
     which are predicated upon the credibility of the witnesses, whom
     the judge has had the opportunity to hear and observe, and upon
     the weight given to their testimony.

In re Jackson, 174 A.3d 14, 23 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted). The

Orphans’ Court's decision to appoint or remove a trustee is subject to review

for abuse of discretion. In re Croessant’s Estate, 393 A.2d 443, 446 (Pa.

1978).

     20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b) relevantly provides as follows:

     (b) When court may remove trustee.--The court may remove
     a trustee if it finds that removal of the trustee best serves the
     interests of the beneficiaries of the trust and is not inconsistent
     with a material purpose of the trust, a suitable co-trustee or
     successor trustee is available and:
     (1) the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;
     (2) lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs
     the administration of the trust;
     (3) the trustee has not effectively administered the trust because
     of the trustee’s unfitness, unwillingness or persistent failures; or
     (4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances. A
     corporate reorganization of an institutional trustee, including a
     plan of merger or consolidation, is not itself a substantial change
     of circumstances.

20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b) (bold in original). “The JSGC comments to section

7766 provide that its ‘grounds for removal assume an active inquiry and

findings by the court.’ 20 Pa.C.S. § 7766, JSGC Comment—2005.” Trust

Under Agreement of Taylor, 164 A.3d 1147, 1158 (Pa. 2017).

     Here, the Orphans’ Court found grounds for removal of solely Ross under

Subsection 7766(b)(2).

                                    - 28 -
J-A23042-23

     [A] person seeking trustee removal pursuant to Section
     [7766(b)(2)] must show by clear and convincing evidence that:
     the removal serves the beneficiaries’ best interests; the removal
     is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust; a suitable
     successor trustee is available; and [a lack of cooperation among
     co-trustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust].
     If all of the requirements are met, then the trial court, in its
     discretion, “may remove” the trustee through an exercise of its
     discretion. 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b).

In re McKinney, 67 A.3d 824, 830 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

     Moreover, regarding removal of a trustee under Subsection 7766(b)(2),

our Supreme Court has held:

     Pennsylvania has a long history of strictly limiting the removal and
     replacement of a trustee to circumstances in which an Orphans’
     Court determines that good cause exists to do so....A testator has,
     as a property right, the privilege and power to place the
     management of [her] estate in a selected person as a condition of
     [her] bounty. While inharmonious relations between trustee and
     [beneficiaries/co-trustees], not altogether the fault of the former,
     will not generally be considered a sufficient cause for removal, yet
     where they have reached so acrimonious a condition as to make
     any personal intercourse impossible, and to hinder the proper
     transaction of business between the parties, a due regard for the
     interests of the estate and the rights of the [beneficiaries/co-
     trustees] may require a change of trustee.

Trust Under Agreement of Taylor, 164 A.3d at 1158-59 (citations omitted).

     Here, the Orphans’ Court provided the following analysis for removing

Ross as a co-trustee while retaining the remaining co-trustees:

            Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(b)(2), the [Orphans’] Court
     may remove a trustee when the lack of cooperation among the
     [co-trustees] impacts the administration of the Trust. That is
     exactly what has occurred in this case. Trust under agreement
     of Taylor, [supra]. The disagreements between the parties, and
     all the resulting litigation, has clearly interfered with the proper
     administration of the Trust, such that the removal of [Ross] as a
     co-trustee is warranted and, in fact, necessary. The history of this

                                    - 29 -
J-A23042-23

     matter has led to a breakdown of communication, as well as
     substantial litigation between the [co-trustees] relating to simple
     repairs of the cabin on the premises. Caselaw supports this
     conclusion in that hostility among [co-trustees], or between a
     trustee and a beneficiary, may be so severe as to justify relief
     including removal, so that that the proper administration of the
     Trust is not jeopardized. In re Croessant's Estate, [supra].
           While removal is a drastic remedy, this situation involves
     not only a lapse in communication, but also [co-trustees not
     wanting] to deal at all with [Ross]. In re White, 484 A.2d 763
     (Pa. 1984). Looking at all of the evidence presented, the standard
     of clear and convincing evidence to justify the removal of [Ross]
     has been met, if not exceeded. In re McKinney, [supra]. As
     noted in [In re McKinney,] the best interests of all the
     beneficiaries, including [Ross] himself, are best met by his
     removal as a [co-trustee]. [See id.] [Ross], of course, remains
     a beneficiary, and [he] retains the right to utilize the Property as
     he has in the past. These rights will not be affected in any way
     by his removal.
           As our Court’s have noted, “…the polestar of every Trust…is
     the settlor’s…intent and that must prevail…” In re McKinney, 67
     A.3d at 830 (citing In re Estate of Warden, 2 A.3d 565
     (Pa.Super. 2010)). [The Decedent] envisioned a situation where
     certain of her heirs could freely use this Property for recreational
     purposes. The dissention caused by [Ross] has jeopardized that
     goal since the beneficiaries cannot agree or communicate with him
     and have acrimonious feelings towards him. Given the
     circumstances, the whole concept envisioned by the Trust is
     jeopardized. With the ill feeling arising from [Ross’s] demands, it
     is inconceivable that many of the majority of the [co-trustees]
     would be comfortable using the Property where they might
     encounter [Ross] or have to deal with him on a repair or
     maintenance issue. Most communications between the majority
     [co-trustees] and [Ross] are currently through attorneys.
           [Ross] did suggest several alternatives to the relief given by
     the [Orphans’] Court. He suggested adding Larry Bullock as a
     disinterested trustee.   Based on the testimony, however, it
     appears that [Larry] is perceived as somewhat aligned with
     [Ross], and [he] does not have the confidence of the other [co-
     trustees].   This alternative seems unworkable, as does his
     suggestion of using a financial institution given the limited
     resources of the Trust. In the end analysis, [Ross] has caused

                                    - 30 -
J-A23042-23

      substantial problems with his unreasonable demands, and he has
      alienated all of his fellow [co-trustees]. This cannot continue.

Orphans’ Court’s Opinion, filed 3/28/23, at 2-3.

      We find no abuse of discretion, and the Orphans’ Court’s findings are

supported by the record.     See In re Cohen, supra.        We agree with the

Orphan’s Court that Respondents demonstrated, by clear and convincing

evidence, that the disputes and difficulties in administering the Trust arose

after Ross became a co-trustee. See Orphans’ Court’s Opinion, filed 3/28/23,

at 2 ¶ 23. Thereafter, “irreconcilable differences” arose with Ross in opposition

to the remaining co-trustees on nearly every issue related to the

administration of the Trust, including the repairs to the cabin, the hiring of a

property manager, and the distribution of income generated by the Property.

See id. at 2 ¶ 21.

      While “inharmonious relations” between Ross and the remaining co-

trustees alone would not “generally be considered a sufficient cause for

removal,” the relations have become so “acrimonious” that Ross demands the

remaining co-trustees, who are his family members, communicate with him

only through his legal counsel. Trust Under Agreement of Taylor, 164 A.3d

at 1158-59. Testimony established the acrimonious relationship hinders the

proper administration of the Trust, including making repairs in a timely

manner, and, as the Orphans’ Court held, prevents all co-trustees from

enjoying the Property, which was the primary intent of the Decedent in

establishing the Trust.

                                     - 31 -
J-A23042-23

      Further, the Orphans’ Court properly concluded that, as opposed to

removing all co-trustees, it was in the best interest of the beneficiaries, and

furthered the material purpose of the Trust, for Respondents (the remaining

co-trustees) to remain intact. As the Orphans’ Court noted, the financial strain

of having a third-party financial institution or attorney to administer the Trust

is unwarranted. Further, the Decedent intended for the Trust to be

administered primarily by the beneficiaries, who were her son and grandsons,

as they each turned thirty years old. There is no evidence the relationship

among Respondents is acrimonious or would hinder the administration of the

Trust. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in this regard. In re Croessant's

Estate, supra.

      For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

      Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/28/2023

                                     - 32 -