Delp v. Delp
97 N.E.3d 1174
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- The Delp Heritage Trust (created 1997) benefitted John Delp’s descendants; trustees were brothers Cleves and Bradley Delp. After Cleves withdrew in 2012, Bradley served as sole trustee.
- Trust required annual accountings to each adult beneficiary or guardian and gave trustees broad discretionary authority to fund beneficiaries’ needs but prohibited decisions to support those the trustee was legally obligated to support.
- Appellees (beneficiaries Morgan and Sydney Delp and minors via Cleves) requested an accounting after multiple transfers from a trust account to Bradley’s personal account and other disputed trustee actions.
- Litigation alleged failure to provide required accountings, improper transfers (including approximately $205,000 moved between trust and Bradley’s personal account), hostile communications with beneficiaries, and other misconduct; appellees sought removal of Bradley as trustee.
- Following a hearing, the probate court found an incurable communication breakdown, raised concerns about Bradley’s credibility (including prior FINRA sanctions and unrelated judicial findings), noted problematic funds transfers, and removed Bradley as trustee under R.C. 5807.06.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review to the removal and concluding the trial court’s findings supported removal under statutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court’s removal of the trustee is a final, appealable order | Removal is a provisional remedy in a probate matter and thus immediately appealable | Removal order is not final; Civ.R. 54(B) certification lacking | Court treated order as a provisional remedy and allowed appeal |
| Standard of review for trustee removal | Abuse of discretion (with de novo review of pure legal questions) | Mixed: abuse of discretion but de novo as to legal standard | Abuse of discretion applies to removal; legal questions de novo; trial court credibility findings entitled to deference |
| Whether appellant committed a serious breach of trust or otherwise warranted removal | Beneficiaries presented transfers, credibility problems, hostility, and prior sanctions as clear and convincing evidence for removal | Transfers were inadvertent/rectified; conduct did not rise to ‘‘serious breach’’; only one beneficiary sought removal | Court found record and witness credibility supported removal under R.C. 5807.06(B) (serious breach, impaired administration, unfitness) |
| Whether trustee’s broad discretionary authority precludes removal | Beneficiaries argued discretion is not unlimited and serious misconduct/communication breakdown justify removal | Trustee argued broad discretion shields his conduct | Court held broad discretion does not bar removal where clear-and-convincing evidence shows serious breach or unfitness; removal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (construction of trust documents reviewed de novo as issues of law)
- In re Estate of Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 595 (2006) (removal/appointment in probate can be treated as an appealable provisional remedy when loss of role cannot be remedied later)