Shelton v. Tamposi
164 N.H. 490
| N.H. | 2013Background
- Julie Shelton, trustee of the EMT Trusts, sues to decouple EMT assets, remove investment directors, surcharge respondents, and recover fees; Betty Tamposi is a petitioner and beneficiary.
- The SAT Sr. Trust and EMT subtrusts were created under a 1992 instrument and a 1994 irrevocable trust; investment directors have substantial control over investments and assets, while the trustee handles distributions to beneficiaries.
- The probate court found an in terrorem violation by Betty and Shelton’s actions, awarded fees against Shelton, and removed Shelton as trustee.
- Shelton and Betty’s amended complaint sought declarations of distributions, removal of investment directors, surcharges for fiduciary breaches, and fee-shifting; the court dismissed the petition and ordered fee proceedings.
- The appellate court held the order partly affirmed and partly remanded for fee determinations; Shelton lacked standing to challenge the in terrorem ruling, but the removal of Shelton as trustee was sustained.
- The case is governed by the Uniform Trust Code and New Hampshire law on standing, fiduciary duties, and trustee removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal in terrorem ruling | Shelton as EMT trustee has standing; the ruling affects fiduciary duties. | Betty's personal interest would enable appeal; trustee lacks standing. | Shelton has no standing to challenge the in terrorem ruling. |
| Trust construction and scope of fiduciaries | Investment Directors can direct distributions; trustee must follow distributions. | Trust language gives investment directors control; trustee is an excluded fiduciary for investments. | Trial court correctly construed two-tier fiduciary structure; investment directors control investments. |
| Attorney’s fees against a trustee in her personal capacity | No basis to award personal fees against trustee when acting officially. | Statute allows fees against a party when justice requires; trustees can be personally liable under certain circumstances. | Statute permits; remand to determine fee factors; intervenors may receive fees. |
| Removal of trustee under RSA 564-B:7-706 | Removal is extreme and not supported by grounds. | Record shows serious breach and mismanagement; removal in beneficiaries’ best interests. | Removal sustained; trial court’s factual findings sustain public interest in beneficiaries. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Williams, 159 N.H. 318 (2009) (standing in an appeal depends on aggrieved status and statutory focus)
- Appeal of Lowy, 156 N.H. 57 (2007) (settlor intent governs trust interpretation when possible)
- King v. Onthank, 152 N.H. 16 (2005) (trustee duties and equitable interpretation of trust language)
- In re Guardianship of Eaton, 163 N.H. 386 (2012) (de novo statutory interpretation of trust-related issues)
- Clippers Affiliates v. Checovich, 138 N.H. 271 (1994) (exceptions to American Rule for attorney’s fees)