Trustee Removal

Subscribe to Trustee Removal via RSS

Magnifying GlassOne challenge that California trustees face is the prospect that confidential attorney-client communications will pass to successor trustees if they resign or are removed from office.  The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, but the client is the office of the trustee, not the incumbent who holds that office.  Hence, the successor trustee generally gets to see the privileged communications of the predecessor, as the California Supreme Court explained in Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124.

A new opinion from the Court of Appeal, Fiduciary Trust International of California v. Klein (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1184, further shows the insecure nature of the attorney-client privilege in the context of California trust administration and may lead successor trustees to be more aggressive in seeking privileged communications of former trustees.

Referree holding red cardIn California trust administrations, the trustee is in the driver’s seat. The trustee marshals the assets, deals with creditors, and (except in the case of ongoing trusts) gets them distributed out to the beneficiaries in fractional shares per the terms of the trust. But what happens when the trustee favors himself as a beneficiary, disfavors a family member he/she dislikes, or simply falls asleep at the wheel?

As illustrated by the Donald Sterling case recently discussed here, petitions to remove trustees are common in California trust litigation. Courts will suspend or remove trustees if the petitioner provides sufficient evidence that removal is necessary to protect the beneficiaries. This post will discuss trustee removal under California law from the beneficiary’s perspective. With apologies to The Sound of Music, “how do you solve a problem like trustee-a?”

The California Court of Appeal blocked Donald Sterling’s last second shot at undoing the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers. Donald sought to overturn the results of an eight day trial that occurred in July 2014. The opinion, issued on November 16, 2015, should be of interest to settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries of “ordinary” trusts in California that do not hold a $2 billion NBA franchise.

The Court of Appeal hammered Donald for procedural deficiencies with his appellate briefs before ruling against Donald on all three issues on appeal. The court held that: (1) Donald was properly removed as trustee on the basis of his incapacity; (2) the trial court appropriately allowed the sale of the Clippers despite the pending appeal; and (3) Donald’s effort to revoke his trust was ineffective to stop the sale of the Clippers.