Harold O. Fulp, Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland, 998 N.E.2d 204

Ruth Fulp placed the family farm into a revocable trust naming herself settlor, trustee, and primary beneficiary, with remainder to her three children on her death.
The trust expressly allowed Ruth to revoke or amend the trust, to use trust assets, and included a clause that, unless otherwise provided, the trustee must act in beneficiaries’ interests and preserve trust property.
Ruth agreed to sell the farm to her son Harold Jr. at a substantially discounted price; an appraisal later showed the farm’s fair market value was far higher.
Ruth signed the purchase agreement as trustee; before closing she resigned, Nancy (a daughter and remainder beneficiary) became successor trustee and refused to proceed.
Trial court found Ruth competent and the price adequate but denied specific performance, holding Ruth breached fiduciary duties to the children and Harold Jr. breached as a beneficiary; the Court of Appeals treated the sale as an effective amendment to the trust; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held that while the trust was revocable the trustee’s duties ran exclusively to the settlor/primary beneficiary (Ruth), not to remainder beneficiaries, and ordered specific performance in favor of Harold Jr.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gilliland)	Defendant's Argument (Fulp/Harold Jr.)	Held
Whether a trustee of a revocable trust owes fiduciary duties to remainder beneficiaries while the settlor is alive and has revocation power	The trustee (Ruth) breached her fiduciary duty to remainder beneficiaries by selling trust property below market value	Trustee’s duties are owed only to the settlor/primary beneficiary while the trust is revocable; settlor may deal with trust assets for her benefit	Trustee owes duties exclusively to the settlor while the trust is revocable; Ruth did not owe fiduciary duties to remainder beneficiaries
Whether the discounted sale operated as an effective amendment of the revocable trust	The sale should be treated as an in‑effect amendment benefitting the buyer and altering trust dispositions	No amendment was necessary or shown: Ruth signed as trustee, sale converted trust asset to cash and did not change trust terms	The purchase agreement did not manifest clear and convincing evidence of intent to amend the trust; no amendment occurred
Whether specific performance of the purchase agreement should be granted	Specific performance should be denied because the sale was a fiduciary breach and inequitable given price disparity	Specific performance should be ordered; trial court erred in finding a fiduciary breach	Trial court abused discretion by denying specific performance; specific performance ordered in favor of Harold Jr.

Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2006) (rules for trust interpretation; ascertain settlor intent)
Moon v. Lesikar, 230 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App. 2007) (revocable‑trust trustee’s duties run to settlor, not contingent beneficiaries)
Brundage v. Bank of Am., 996 So.2d 877 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (remainder beneficiaries have no vested interest while trust revocable)
In re Stephen M. Gunther Revocable Living Trust, 350 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (trustee owed no duty to beneficiaries prior to settlor’s death)
Ex parte Synovus Trust Co., 41 So.3d 70 (Ala. 2009) (trustee’s duties owed only to settlor for revocable trusts)
Marshall Cnty. Tax Awareness Comm. v. Quivey, 780 N.E.2d 380 (Ind. 2002) (recognizing beneficial ownership/control despite formal title transfer)