Court Opinion

ID: 9758274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:18:39.257465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:48.813268
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting in part. Removal of a trustee is within the sound discretion of a trial court. Here, I strongly believe there is evidence that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Kelsey to remain trustee. The facts reveal that Fred is wheelchair bound due to a neuropathy condition, and he was in dire need of and received payments for his health care costs from the trust. The record reflects that Kelsey, acting as trustee, quit making Fred’s necessary health care payments. Kelsey’s refusal to see that Fred’s necessary health costs and benefits are paid, seriously ignores Fred’s health needs. In addition, Anne’s trust specifically awards fees only to a corporate trustee1, not an individual trustee. Concerning these two matters above,2 I believe that the trial court should have removed Kelsey as trustee. At the very least, the trial court should reconsider this issue when it conducts the fee issue this court has ordered on remand. In my opinion, when the trial court ignored information regarding Kelsey’s conflict of interest coupled with Anne’s intent to only have a corporation serve as the trustee of her trust, it abused its discretion. Accordingly, I would also reverse and remand for the trial court to appoint a new corporate trustee. Dickey, J., joins.   Specifically, the Trust stated in relevant part: Any corporate trustee shall be entitled to reasonable fees commensurate with its duties and responsibilities, taking into account the value and nature of the trust estate and the time and work involved. The Trustee shall be reimbursed for the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with its fiduciary duties hereunder.    The conflict of interest between Kelsey and Fred is even more apparent by Kelsey’s refusal to share family “pictures and memorabilia” with Fred.