Ex-Husband Of Trust Beneficiary Does Not Have Standing To Seek Removal Of Trustee
Petitioner lacked standing to seek the removal of the trustee of the subject trust where he had no direct or personal beneficial interest in the trust and his claim in the trust was no greater than that of the general public. The court sustained respondent’s preliminary objection.
This matter involved a trust established under the will of decedent Sheila Hundt. The trust was established pursuant to a February 2000 codicil to Hundt’s last will and testament and set up for the benefit of Sheila’s daughter, Ashley Hundt-Ventrone. Ashley was the sole income and principal beneficiary of the trust, and her two minor children were named contingent remainder beneficiaries. Attorney William Cooper and Ashley’s ex-mother-in-law, Lynne Ventrone, were appointed as successor co-trustees in July 2013 in a trust modification. Shortly thereafter, Lynne executed a designation authorizing Cooper to act on her behalf relating to the trust. The trust instruments expressly granted trustee authority and discretion to “terminate [the trust] and to distribute the then remaining trust corpus to [Ashley].” Petitioner Michael Ventrone is Ashley’s ex-husband. He and Ashley had been involved in an extended domestic relations matter relating to their divorce, custody of their children and child support. The family law litigation was still pending in Montgomery County at the time of the court’s opinion. Here, Michael filed a petition seeking to replace Cooper with a new trustee, Joe Ventrone, due to an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Cooper, respondent herein, filed preliminary objections to the petition, asserting a lack of standing. “Threshold issues of standing are questions of law,” the court wrote, citing Rellick-Smith v. Rellick. Under 20 Pa. C.S. 7766(a), “the settlor, a co-trustee or beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.” In this case, petitioner was not a settler, a co-trustee or a beneficiary of the trust. In fact, he had no direct interest in the trust and was not otherwise an “interested party,” the court observed. Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rule 1.3 defines an “interested party” with respect to a trust as “one of more individuals or entities having or claiming an interest in the…trust…that is the subject of legal proceeding.” Here, petitioner’s claim in the trust was no greater than that of a member of the general public. As petitioner had no direct or personal beneficial interest in the trust, the court found that he lacked standing to seek the removal of the trustee.
Re: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 44 PLW 65, Tuesday, January 15, 2021, In re: Trust Under Will of Hundt, PICS Case No. 20-1390 (C.P. Chester, June 24, 2020)
Kindly visit our Estate Litigation or Trust & Estate Planning websites and contact one of our Estate Attorneys, Philadelphia or Trust and Estate Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.