Bank of the Ozarks v. Cossey, 471 S.W.3d 203

Frank and Margaret Hamilton created a living trust naming Bank of the Ozarks as successor trustee; the trust provided beneficiary selection of an alternate trustee if the Bank declined.
Frank died in 2008 and Margaret in 2009; the Bank held some trust assets under a custody agreement (cash and securities).
The Bank sent six letters (2009–2011) to beneficiary Larry Hamilton declining to serve as successor trustee.
Despite those letters, the Bank reimbursed Hamilton for funeral, auto, and utility expenses and liquidated some securities at his direction.
Susan Cossey (co‑beneficiary) petitioned for an accounting; the circuit court found the Bank initially rejected the trusteeship but later accepted it by exercising trustee powers and ordered an accounting and attorney’s fees.
The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as nonfinal; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the circuit court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bank accepted or validly rejected the trusteeship	Cossey: Bank accepted by reimbursing expenses and liquidating securities — conduct of a trustee	Bank: Sent letters rejecting trusteeship and actions were only to preserve trust property under the safe‑harbor	Bank rejected then later accepted — reimbursements/liquidations constituted exercising trustee powers, so Bank accepted and must account
Whether actions fit within the safe‑harbor for persons who reject trusteeship	Cossey: Reimbursements/asset sales exceeded preservation and inspection allowed by safe‑harbor	Bank: Subsection (c) permits acting to preserve trust property if rejection is sent to beneficiaries afterward	Held not within safe‑harbor: no proof property was trust property and actions matched trustee powers, not mere preservation
Whether an accounting was an appropriate remedy	Cossey: Accounting required because Bank performed trustee duties	Bank: If it rejected trusteeship, it owed no accounting	Held: Accounting appropriate because Bank accepted trusteeship by its conduct
Award of attorney’s fees	Cossey: Fees permissible under trust‑administration statute; fees were reasonable and supported	Bank: Fees improper because dispute over status of trustee isn’t trust administration and fees unreasonable	Held: Fees allowed under statute for proceedings involving trust administration; award not an abuse of discretion

In re Estate of Thompson, 2014 Ark. 237 (discusses de novo review of trust construction)
Bakalekos v. Furlow, 2011 Ark. 505 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Hanners v. Giant Oil Co. of Ark., 373 Ark. 418 (attorney’s fees generally disallowed unless statute permits)
Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin, 2011 Ark. 51 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for attorney‑fee awards)
Bailey v. Delta Trust & Bank, 359 Ark. 424 (definition of abuse of discretion in fee determinations)