Kidd v. AlfanoKidd v. Alfano
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants Martha J.W. Kidd,
{¶ 2} We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 3} The trial court adopted the procedural history and facts as stated in the magistrate‘s decisions, except as justified in the trial court‘s decision. The trial court‘s “justification” of facts relates only to the remedy fashioned in regard to the advancement made to Susan Alfano as will be further detailed.
{¶ 4} Jean Webb is in her 90‘s and is not able to handle her own affairs. Herb and Jean were married for over 60 years and in 2006 they set up the Herbert G. Webb Living Trust as part of the family estate plan. Herb died on May 21, 2009. The family consisted of Herb‘s surviving spouse, Jean, and Herb and Jean‘s children, Susan, Martha, Karl, and Margaret (Maggie). When the trust was set up on September 27, 2006, Herb was trustee but upon his death the initial successor co-trustees were to be daughter Martha with co-trustee/granddaughter Jennifer Alfano-Hill (Susan‘s daughter). But Herb changed that by removing Martha entirely on April 3, 2009 at about the time he realized his cancer diagnosis was terminal. At the time of the April 2009 change in trustees, in the opinion of Richard Carr, Herb and Jean‘s attorney, Jеan already had lost her mental faculties and was not capable of making changes in her already existing will or powers of attorney. Martha was upset about being removed as trustee.
{¶ 5} Upon Herb‘s death, his daughter, Susan Alfano, and granddaughter, Jennifer became co-trustees according to the terms of the amendment of the trust. Also after Herb‘s death, the family decided Jean would move to Georgia to live with Martha and her husband, Bill. Jean‘s daughter, Maggie, also lived in the same area and would be able to visit.
{¶ 7} Another account had been opened at Pinnacle Bank in Georgia on September 1, 2009, in Jean and Martha‘s names, with insurance proceeds of about $6,500. Martha‘s name on the account does not reflect that Martha was only acting in a representative capacity as power of attorney. Martha claimed Jennifer was aware of this account, but the rest of the family indicated Jean was unable to handle her own affairs since the late 1990s, and that this account was opened secretly.
{¶ 8} On November 25, 2009, a check was written on the USAA account to Martha‘s husband, ostensibly as a birthday gift from Jean. On December 3, 2009, Martha “reimbursed” herself $2,265.79 from the account. Martha said this was with Jennifer‘s knowledge, but Jennifer denied knowledge or authorization. On December 29, 2009, the same day Martha filed the guardianship petition, which asserted Jean was incapable of handling her own affairs, a check was written in the amount of $37,000 to Jean, signed by Jean and deposited in the undisclosed Pinnacle account. On January 25, 2010, Martha
{¶ 9} As some of the Georgia bank account information came to light, Jennifer and Susan decided to file a cross-petition for a guardian and conservator, which they did on January 27, 2010. The next day, Martha used $40,000 that she had transferred from the USAA account to the Pinnacle account to acquire two Pinnacle CD accounts, $20,000.00 each, signed by Martha and Jean, in their joint names with a right of survivorship. These account ownership designations apparently were not changed until after the settlement on the second Georgia litigation, on September 26, 2011, because relinquishment of Martha‘s survivorship interest was part of the settlement. Had Jean expired in the interim, the CD accounts would havе passed by survivorship to Martha. Jean‘s will, which had been executed in 2006, disposed of all her assets to the Herbert G. Webb Living Trust which, in turn, would have divided her assets equally to the four children. Transfer of the entirety of the CDs by survivorship to Martha likely would have resulted in another round of litigation.1
{¶ 10} Martha says that she returned the money she had taken, but the record is not clear whether she was referring only to returning the $13,000 check for cash she wrote
{¶ 11} With regard to the filing of a cross petition in the Georgia court for appointment of a guardian and conservator of Jean, the rest of “the family agreed that it was in Jean‘s best interest to oppоse Martha‘s petition” (Magistrate‘s Decision, March 20, 2014 at 10). Jennifer and Susan, the Ohio co-trustees, decided to use trust funds to pay for the lawyers in both Ohio and Georgia. “All of the family members (except, of course, Martha and legally incapacitated Jean) were aware of the litigation and use of Trust funds.” (Id.). Richard Carr opined that Jean‘s general durable power of attorney and healthcare power of attorney made a guardianship unnecessary if Martha and Jennifer had been able to work together.
{¶ 12} On March 30, 2010, a final order of Judge Cross of the Probate Court of Madison County, Georgia appointed Martha as guardian of Jean and Jennifer as conservator of Jean‘s assets.2 Martha was ordered to “relinquish all funds of the ward‘s
{¶ 13} The second Georgia litigation (the de novo appeal) proceeded through discovery including documentary exchange, depositions, interlocutory motions, and court orders for bank records. The case eventually was ordered to mediation, and a settlement agreement was reached on September 26, 2011, ending the case. The approximate year and a half of litigation was paid for by the trust on behalf of the family in the amount of roughly $41,300 for Ohio attorneys, $69,000 for Georgia attorneys, and $6,500 in expenses for a total of almost $117,000, all with the approval of the rest of the family.
{¶ 14} For the Ohio litigation that resulted in this appeal, as of completion of the trial, the rest of the family had incurred attorney fees of $101,434.27 and costs of $1,521.40 for a total of $102,955.67. Although Martha Kidd spent considerably less than the rest of the family for her first two Georgia cases, it was perhaps in part because she did not engage lawyers in two states, was not defending in a distant jurisdiction, and, as
{¶ 15} In 2013, while this case was pending in the trial court, Martha initiated a fourth lawsuit, the third Georgia litigation, seeking to deny visitation with Jean by other family members. The parties named in this complaint are Martha and Jean, as plaintiffs, and Jennifer and Maggie, as defendants. Jennifer is named in her representative capacity as the conservator for Jean, and Maggie is named in her individual capacity. In response to the third Georgia lawsuit, the defendants seek to hold Martha in contempt of court for denial of visitation rights, and to remove Martha as guardian. Martha had obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order regarding visitation in that case but after a two-day hearing, the restraining order was not extended. The current status, or the final resolution, of the third Georgia action is not apparent from the record in this apрeal. On that case Martha spent $22,938.36 for attorney fees and the rest of the family spent $25,017.29 as of the stipulation filed March 12, 2014.
{¶ 16} At the time of the Ohio trial, the Georgia conservatorship had about $400,000 in the conservator account and income outpaces expenses. The remaining portion of the Webb trust had a value of approximately $146,000.
{¶ 17} The second Georgia litigation was mediated pursuant to that court‘s alternative dispute resolution program and on September 26, 2011 a settlement agreement was signed by Martha, Jennifer, and Maggie3, retaining Martha as guardian
{¶ 18} In the underlying Ohio litigation here, the Magistrate determined, and the trial court adopted, the following facts:
In 2012, Susan became gravely ill. She was hospitalized sеven times and spent many days in the intensive care unit, at times in a coma. Her husband even began considering funeral arrangements. On one occasion, while Susan was in a coma, Susan‘s husband approached his daughter
Jennifer and requested an advancement of $14,000.00 on Susan‘s behalf for medical expenses incurred. Initially, Jennifer refused the request. However, when her father asked a second time, and after consulting with Maggie, Jennifer agreed. On November 11, 2012, Susan signed a document requesting the $14,000.00 advance, stating, “I understand that it is an advance and it will be deducted from my share of the final distribution when it is made.” The request was signed by John (for Susan) and Maggie. Jennifer made the $14,000.00 advancement. She did not consult the next co-trustee named in the Trust, Karl. However, Karl is now aware of the advance and has raised no objection thereto. Thus, it may be inferred that, to whatever extent Karl‘s approval was needed, Karl has ratified the advance. Martha was not consulted regarding the advancement. (Footnote omitted). Richard Carr [scrivener of the trust] opined that the Trust document allows for the making of advancements, so long as there reasonably appears to be enough funds available to achieve the Trust‘s primary purpose of caring for Jean.
(Magistrate‘s Decision at 14).
{¶ 19} At the time of Herb‘s death, the trust was divided into two trusts – a marital trust for the benefit of his wife, Jean, during her lifetime with the remainder distributed to the four children upon her death, and a family trust for distribution to the children. Susan and her daughter Jennifer are the first successor co-trustees for the trust. Each trust started with a balance of $285,029.50. Later, the proceeds of the sale of Herb and Jean‘s
{¶ 20} Article XI (A)(9) of the trust gives the successor co-trustees, currently Susan and Jennifer, the authority “to pay all expenses incurred in the administration of the trust, including reasonable compensation to any successor co-trustees for actual services rendered, and to employ or appoint and рay reasonable compensation to accountants, depositaries, investment counsel, attorneys, attorneys-in-fact, and agents.” Article XI (A)(10) gives the co-trustees authority “to deal with the fiduciary or fiduciaries of any other trust or estate, even though a successor co-trustee(s) is also a fiduciary of the other trust or estate.” Article XI(A)(18), authorizes the co-trustees “to distribute, without filing a judicial accounting or obtaining judicial approval, the whole or part of the trust estate upon the receipt and release of the beneficiary(ies) entitled to receive such distribution or based upon an agreement with such person.” Pursuant to Article XII(A), if a beneficiary becomes disabled, the co-trustees have the authority to make distributions to the disabled beneficiary directly or to her appointed guardian. Pursuant to Article XII(D)(ii), the successor co-trustees have no power to use the trust property “for the purpose of directly or indirectly discharging the personal legal obligations of the successor co-trustees.” Article VII(B) requires the co-trustees “to rendеr a current annual account to each income and vested principal beneficiary who so requests in writing each year.”
{¶ 21} The trustees did not create or provide any formal annual accounting of the trust assets, expenses, and distributions, from its inception in 2009 until 2013. Martha and
II. The Course of the Proceedings in Ohio
{¶ 22} The case before us was initiated in the general division of common pleas court,4 seeking an accounting of the marital trust established for the sole benefit of Jean Webb, and for damages based on tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with inheritance rights, conversion, fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The action also sought punitive damages, a declaratory judgment to outline the rights of the parties under the trust, and any other relief under law or equity. Only two of the five defendants are co-trustees of the trust, who were named as parties in both their individual capacity and in their representative capacity as trustees. The other three defendants are family members, named as parties in their individual capacity.
{¶ 23} Shortly after the answer was filed, the matter was referred to the court‘s magistrate for trial and a magistrate‘s decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues of fact and law, as prescribed by
{¶ 24} After the trial before the magistrate, the magistrate issued a decision ruling in favor of the defendants/appellees on all claims other than the breach of fiduciary duty claim with regard to the $14,000.00 advancement to Susan, which the magistrate concluded was a breach of fiduciary duty. The magistrate ruled that the trustees had a statutory duty, pursuant to
{¶ 25} The magistrate also concluded that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties under tort law by authorizing the expenditure of trust funds to pay the legal fees incurred for defending all four legal actions. The magistrate determined that the language of the parties’ settlement agreement stating that “[e]ach party will pay his/her own costs and fees,” was ambiguous regarding payment of attorney fees from the trust because it is not clear what was meant by the term “parties,” and the agrеement does not mention parties by name or whether they were parties in their individual capacities or in their representative capacities. Therefore, the magistrate allowed the witnesses to explain what they thought was meant by the term, and the magistrate adopted the definition suggested by Maggie, who also signed the settlement agreement. Maggie testified that the language was meant to clarify that neither side in the dispute would be obligated to pay the opposing party‘s legal fees.
{¶ 26} After objections were filed by both sides, the trial court adopted the findings of fact made by the court magistrate. It was concluded that payment of the legal fees from the marital trust was reasonable and proper and was necessary to serve Jean‘s best interest.
{¶ 27} The trial court agreed with the magistrate‘s conclusions of law on all issues except for the magistrate‘s resolution about the $14,000.00 advancement. The magistrate had concluded that Jean‘s children could individually consent to forgiveness of repayment of the money of the breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court ruled Susan must repay to the
III. Standard of Review
{¶ 28} “The decision whether to remove a trustee lies within the sound discretion of the probate court, and an appellate court will not reverse that decision absent a showing of a clear abuse of that discretion.” Ulinski v. Byers, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27267, 2015-Ohio-282, ¶ 14, citing In re Trust Estate of CNZ Trust, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA008940, 2007-Ohio-2265, ¶ 16. However, when the issue concerns the application of law, it can present a mixed question of law and fact, which calls for two different standards of review. Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 2012-Ohio-3208, 972 N.E.2d 586, ¶ 11. See also Schulze v. Grandstaff, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-040, 2012-Ohio-5934, ¶ 13. As summarized in State v. Carr, 173 Ohio App.3d 436, 2007-Ohio-5466, 878 N.E.2d 1077, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.):
We must accept the trial court‘s findings of fact as true if they are supported by competent and credible evidence. However, with respect to the trial court‘s conclusions of law, we must apply a de novo standard of review and decide whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. An appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court‘s conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. (Internal citations omitted.)
{¶ 30} The second issue before us calls for an interpretation of the settlement agreement executed by the parties to the Georgia litigation. We review interpretation of a contract de novo, unless the contract is ambiguous. Juhas v. Juhas 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26186, 2014-Ohio-5364, ¶ 18. Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, but once we agree that there is an ambiguity, the trial court‘s clarification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.
IV. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Determining that the Trustees’ Actions Were Not a Serious Breach of Trust
{¶ 31} Kidd‘s First Assignment of Error alleges as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO REMOVE THE CO-TRUSTEES BECAUSE THE CO-TRUSTEES MAINTAINED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, COMMITTED A BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE TIMELY ACCOUNTINGS, CAUSING WASTE AND SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO JEAN AND HER TRUST.
{¶ 33}
(A) The settlor, a cotrustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee, or the court may remove a trustee on its own initiative.
(B) The court may remove a trustee for any of the follоwing reasons:
(1) The trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;
(2) Lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust;
(3) Because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries.
(C) Pending a final decision on a request to remove a trustee, or in lieu of or in addition to removing a trustee, the court may order any appropriate relief under division (B) of
section 5810.01 of the Revised Code that is necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.
{¶ 34} Martha argues that the trial court erred by finding that the co-trustees’ breach of duty was not “serious.” The term “serious” is not defined in
[T]he record in this case reflects numerous instances of Rapoport‘s abuse of his fiduciary duties that support the trial court‘s finding that he committed a serious breach of trust. The evidence demonstrated that he approved expenditures of over $115,000 on a property that eventually sold for a loss; hired companies with which he had either a personal or attorney-client relationship to work on the property and later advised those companies not to respond to subpoenas issued by counsel for Jennine; never provided an accounting of Trust expenditures to any of the beneficiaries and pursuant to a request for an accounting, provided only a “guesstimate” of his Trust administration; presented a proposal regarding the Euclid property to Jennine without knowing the value of the property and conditioned upon her executing a release of his liability regarding his administration of the Trust; and threatened Jennine with eviction and a mental examination if she did not accept his proposal.
Tomazic v. Rapoport, 2012-Ohio-4402, 977 N.E.2d 1068, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.). We note however that the court of appeals conclusion that a “serious breach of trust” was proven was supported by “numerous breaches of fiduciary duties.” We also observe that the court commented “[t]he removal of a trustee is generally considered a drastic action and the party seeking to remove a trustee must show a basis for removal by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at ¶ 33, citing Diemert v. Diemert, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82597, 2003-Ohio-6496, ¶ 15–16.
{¶ 35} In the probate case of Schwartz v. Tedrick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102082, 2016-Ohio-1218, a trustee was removed under
{¶ 36} The parties have likewise failed to refer us to any case law from other states on the issue and although we have reviewed some cases discussing it, they have not been helpful to our analysis.
{¶ 37}
[N]ot every breach of trust justifies removal of the trustee. The breach must be “serious.” A serious breach of trust may consist of a single act that causes significant harm or involves flagrant misconduct. A serious breach of trust may also consist of a series of smaller breaches, none of which individually justify removal when considered alone, but which do so when considered together. A particularly appropriate circumstance justifying removal of the trustee is a serious breach of the trustee‘s duty to keep the beneficiaries reasonably informed of the administration of the trust or to comply with a beneficiary‘s request for information as required by Section 813. Failure to comply with this duty may make it impossible for the beneficiaries to protect their interests. It may also mask more serious
{¶ 38} The trial court concluded that the trustees breached their fiduciary duty by making the advancement to Susan for her personal benefit. The trial court corrected the magistrate‘s conclusions regarding the appropriate remedy for this breach, and ordered Susan to pay back the $14,000 plus interest as relief authorized by
{¶ 39} Appellants’ arguments addressing the failure to remove the trustees are three: 1) the trial court did not appreciate the magnitude of the $14,000.00 advancement and the trust paid attorney fees “through years of litigation” defending the advancement; 2) the co-trustees Jennifer and Susan maintained conflicts of interest which should have resulted in their immediate removal; and 3) thе co-trustees wasted trust assets by paying
{¶ 40} Taking these assertions in reverse order, with regard to payment of attorney fees, we discuss the trial court‘s approval of those fees in our analysis overruling the second assignment of error. Moreover, there was never any evidence presented concerning how much of the attorney fees, if any, were “wasted” fighting disclosure as opposed to fees spent by the family to discover and prove Martha‘s misuse and sequestration of Jean‘s funds and challenging Martha‘s attempt to be conservator. It was appellants’ contention in the trial court, and here, that no attorney fees could be paid from the trust at all because of the settlement agreement. Therefore, our analysis of the first assignment of error is grounded in the first two arguments in the preceding paragraph.
{¶ 41} Appellants’ second argument is that Jennifer should have been removed because she “maintained” conflicts of interest. We reiterate that removal of the trustees was not raised before thе trial. Nonetheless, we observe that potential conflict of interest is inherent in every family trust with a trustee who is a family member. But a family member is typically who the settlor chooses because the settlor recognizes who is reliable, honest, and who has an understanding of the family and the settlor‘s intentions. Jennifer‘s decision to make an advancement to her mother was not improper because it was inherently wrong or unjustified; it was found to be improper only because
{¶ 42} The second part of Appellants’ first argument, that the co-trustees paid attorney fees from the trust “through years of litigation” to defend the $14,000.00 advancement is not supported by the facts and not detailed by any evidence. The first and second pieces of litigation initiated by Martha resulted in $150,000.00 being spent on attorneys by the trust. The second case was settled September 26, 2011. More than a year later, on November 11, 2012, the advancement was made. Consequently, none of the first $150,000.00 could have been spent to defend the advancement because the advancement had yet to be made. This Ohio litigation was commenced on February 26, 2013. Trial was held February 12-13, 2014. Again it did not extend “through years of litigation.” Notably, the claims in the trial court were principally tort claims seeking monetary damages from the trustees, individually and as trustees, and they were entitled
{¶ 43} That leaves the first assignment of error to hinge on Appellants’ argument that the trial court failed to appreciate the magnitude of the breach of fiduciary duty. After review of all the evidence and all the arguments, the trial court concluded in its detailed 50-page written opinion that there was a single breach of fiduciary duty, the advancement of inheritance to Susan. Although Appellants argue about other alleged indiscretions, the triаl court did not find, the record does not support, and appellants do not assign as error the failure to find any other breach. It was therefore the single breach which the trial court concluded was not a “serious” breach of the trust and that the trustees should not be removed because of it. The record supports this conclusion. Jennifer discussed the advancement issue with Maggie and reluctantly decided to make an “advancement” of inheritance. The magistrate, and the trial court, noted that Richard Carr, who prepared the trust, opined that the trust permitted advancements as long as there were sufficient funds to achieve its objective of caring for Jean. Jennifer testified that she believed the trust permitted her to make the advancement. The magistrate and trial court found the advancement to be a breach of fiduciary duty because of the statutory presumption in
{¶ 44} After careful consideration we cannot say that the decision not to remove the trustees was an abuse of discretion. The facts and circumstances here do not compare with the serious actions of the trustee in Tomazic v. Rapoport where Rapoport committed numerous breaches of fiduciary duty, tried to have a beneficiary release him from liability and threatened to evict her if she did not. The actions here do nоt compare to those of Tedrick in Schwartz v. Tedrick where she had $400,000.00 of gifts to her husband‘s children removed from the trust and she removed the previous co-trustees, all for her own benefit. We conclude that even if Appellants’ request for removal of the trustees had been timely requested, argued, and tried, we would affirm the trial court‘s decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to order the trustees removal.
V. It Was Reasonable for the Trial Court to Conclude that Payment of Attorney Fees from the Trust for the Rest of the Family Was Not a Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
{¶ 46} In its ruling, the trial court reasoned:
The Court is in agreement with the Magistrate‘s Decision that the payment of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees from the trust was proper. As detailed by the Magistrate, Martha initiated four separate pieces of litigation pertaining to Jean, all of which were directly related “to Jean‘s support (i.e. her financial well-being, protection of her asserts and/or the Trust assets), and/or health (i.e. her physical and mental well-being).” See Magistrate‘s Decision. The co-trustees were authorized by the Trust document and the Ohio Trust Code to employ and pay attorney fees directly from the Trust. See
R.C. 5808.16(X) and(AA) . A review of the testimony provided in this case indicates that Jennifer, Susan, Margaret, and Karl all felt that defending these actions was necessary to support Jean‘s interests, but that the beneficiaries had little means to fight Martha independent of expending the Trust property. The co-trustees were authorized by the Trust document to use trust funds to pay for attorney fees, and this action was reasonable given that the co-trustees believed that defending these lawsuits was necessary to support Jean and her estate. Id. * * * Therefore, Jennifer and Susan did not breach their fiduciary duties in using Marital Sub-Trust funds to pay for the Defendants’ litigation expenses, as these expenses were necessary inorder to serve Jean‘s best interests.
(Final and Appealable Decision, Order, and Entry, etc., February 19, 2015 at 41).
{¶ 47} The foregoing determination is not unreasonable. Martha had transferred approximately $100,000 of her mother‘s money into her and her mother‘s joint names, with survivorship rights. She had made a $24,010 down payment on her new house. She had made a $13,000 gift to herself, and she had applied to be conservator in charge of Jean‘s funds. It cannot seriously or reasonably be argued that intervention by the trustеe at that point was unnecessary for Jean‘s protection. Such intervention was successful when the probate judge ordered the appointment of Martha as guardian and Jennifer as conservator. But Martha was not satisfied with that result and instituted a de novo appeal. The risks to Jean‘s money were ever-present. The fact that the litigation in a foreign jurisdiction became more costly than perhaps anticipated does little to negate the necessity of engagement of attorneys to protect the financial interests of Jean, who was legally incapacitated and had been unable to handle her own financial affairs for years. In addition, the trustees were named as defendants in this tort case, and the trust had statutory authority (
{¶ 48} Kidd‘s Second Assignment of Error is:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE‘S INTERPRETATION OF THE GEORGIA MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES WERE ALWAYS A “PARTY” TO THE GEORGIA LITIGATIONS AND EXPRESSLY AGREED TO PAY THEIR OWN ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.
{¶ 49} We have previously indicated that the Ohio trust paid attorney fees for the rest of the family for four pieces of litigation. The September 26, 2011 mediated settlement agreement resolved the case of the initial appointment of guardian and conservator, the de novo appeal of those appointments, and miscellaneous expenses Martha claimed she was due resulting from Jean‘s care. The settlement did not address the Ohio litigation that began in February 2013 or the 2013 denial of visitation litigation in Georgia. Obviously if the settlement agreement had resolved the two 2013 cases then those causes could not have been pursued. The trust paid attorney fees for all four litigations, and, because the settlement only dealt with the first two, we conclude as a matter of law that Appellants’ second assignment of error challenges only whether the settlement agreement precluded payment of the rest of the family‘s attorney fees for the first two cases.
{¶ 50} Martha contends that the trial court erred by concluding that the express language of the settlement agreement was ambiguous. The Settlement Agreement states, in part, that “EACH PARTY WILL PAY HIS/HER OWN COSTS AND FEES[.]” The trial
{¶ 51} In our view, the extent to which the settlement agreement is ambiguous is created only by Martha‘s contention that the agreement prohibited the trust from paying attorney fees when the trust was not a named party to the Georgia litigation or the agreement itself. Throughout the trial proceedings below, Martha asserted that she did not receive trust accountings and therefore she did not know, as of the September 26, 2011 agreement, that the trust was paying the attorney fees for the Georgia litigations. If that is the case, then we fail to see how she intended for the settlement agreement to preclude the trust from having paid those fees. In this regard, we agree with the trial court, and the
{¶ 52} Given our opinion that the trial court correctly found the trust was entitled to spend the funds for the attorney fees, that such payments were not a breach of fiduciary duty and that the Georgia settlement did not prohibit the Ohio trust from paying legal fees for the rest of the family, there is no further question for us to resolve with regard to the amount of attorney fees. The second assignment of error challenges only whether the trust payment of fees is prohibited by the Georgia settlement. “We are required to ‘determine the appeal on its merits on the assignments of error set forth in the briefs under
{¶ 53} The second assignment of error contends only that the settlement of the Georgia litigation precludes payment of attorney fees from the trust. The trial court reasonably determined the settlement agreement does not. We cannot say that conclusion was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly we overrule the second assignment of error.
VII. Conclusion
{¶ 54} The appellants had a fаir and adequate trial on their tort claims where they did not request removal of the trustees, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not removing the trustees and the plaintiffs did not convince the trial court, or us, that the
FROELICH, J., concurs.
FAIN, J., concurring:
{¶ 55} I write separately to express my view that although prior court authorization is not required for a trustee‘s payment of expenses out of an inter vivos trust, the probate court and the general division of the common pleas court have concurrent jurisdiction to consider a claim, by a party having an interest in the trust, that a particular expenditure from the trust is not authorized. The trust agreement before us authorizes the trustee “to employ or appoint and pay reasonable compensation to * * * attorneys.” (Trust Article XI(A)(9), emphasis added). Therefore, in my view, Martha could have presented a claim in the probate court that the compensation paid to attorneys from the trust was not reasonable in amount. I agree, however, that the reasonableness of the amount of the attorneys fees paid from the trust is not an issue presented by Martha‘s assignments of error.
{¶ 56} I concur in the judgment.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Copies mailed to:
David D. Brannon
Christopher R. Conard
Daniel J. Gentry
Hon. Dennis J. Langer