2019 Ohio 1035
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Settlor Dan E. Wyper created a trust; he died in Oct. 2016. Appellant Nadine DuFour was trustee until removed; Steven Skutch was appointed successor trustee.
- Trust paragraph 3.04 expressly grants DuFour (if living at settlor’s death) "exclusive occupancy" of the residence described as "11149 River Bend Court West, Perrysburg, Ohio 43551."
- At the time of Dan’s death, DuFour lived at 29666 Chatham Way (the Chatham property); Dan had transferred Chatham into the trust ~14 months before his death. Dan had earlier leased the River Bend property to a tenant.
- Dan’s children, Margaret and David Wyper, sued, obtained removal of DuFour as trustee, and asked the court to resolve which property DuFour may occupy. They wanted to sell Chatham to avoid foreclosure.
- DuFour argued paragraph 3.04 meant occupancy of the residence Dan occupied at death (Chatham); appellees and successor trustee argued the clause grants occupancy of the specifically named River Bend address.
- Trial court construed paragraph 3.04 as clear and unambiguous, ruled DuFour’s exclusive-occupancy right attaches to the specifically named River Bend property, and ordered DuFour to vacate Chatham; Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 3.04 of the trust grants DuFour a right to occupy Chatham Way | DuFour: "exclusive occupancy" should apply to the residence Dan occupied at death (Chatham); trust language should be interpreted to effect that intent | Margaret/David & trustee: paragraph 3.04 names a specific address (River Bend), so right is limited to that property; no amendment was made to shift occupancy to Chatham | Court: Paragraph 3.04 is clear and unambiguous; it grants exclusive occupancy of the specifically named River Bend property, not Chatham; DuFour must vacate Chatham |
| Whether extrinsic provisions or trustee powers (other trust paragraphs) give DuFour a right to choose residence | DuFour: other provisions (3.05, 4.01, 4.02, 4.07) and trustee powers allow her to occupy Chatham | Opposing parties: those provisions are irrelevant to the express occupancy grant in 3.04 and were not argued below | Court: Those arguments were not raised in trial court (waived) and are irrelevant because 3.04’s plain language controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 972 N.E.2d 586 (Ohio 2012) (trust interpretation is a question of law; courts give effect to settlor’s intent)
- Domo v. McCarthy, 66 Ohio St.3d 312, 612 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 1993) (primary purpose of trust interpretation is to effectuate settlor’s intent)
- Saunders v. Mortensen, 101 Ohio St.3d 86, 801 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2004) (contract and trust interpretation aim to ascertain the parties’ or settlor’s intent)