Background
Robert H. Fox created the Robert H. Fox Revocable Living Trust in 1991, naming his two adult sons, Gregory and Jeffrey, as beneficiaries. Neither son ever married or had children. Jeffrey died intestate in February 2022, and Gregory died intestate two months later. With no surviving named beneficiaries, a dispute arose over the trust’s assets. Attorney Darin Avery, who had been appointed as successor trustee by the probate court, opposed the distribution sought by the family members.
Relatives of Robert’s late wife Phyllis filed a declaratory judgment action seeking interpretation of the trust document and distribution of its assets. After denying Avery’s multiple motions to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, the probate court determined that the trust’s residual provision directed distribution to Robert’s heirs — his distant relatives — rather than to Phyllis’s relatives or to the trustee.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed, systematically rejecting Avery’s eight assignments of error. The court held that the probate court properly exercised jurisdiction over the trust interpretation question and correctly applied the trust’s residual provision, Article IV, Section F(7), which provided for distribution “[i]n the event that there shall be no surviving named beneficiaries.” The court found that this provision directed assets to Robert’s heirs, as determined by Ohio’s intestacy statutes.
The court rejected Avery’s argument that the trust should terminate and its assets revert to the trustee, finding no provision in the trust document supporting that result. The court also rejected the argument that Robert’s will — executed the same day as the trust — disinherited his heirs from the trust, explaining that the will’s disinheriting clause applied to testamentary assets poured into the trust, not to the trust’s independent distribution provisions.
Key Takeaways
- When all named beneficiaries of an Ohio trust die without issue, the trust’s residual provision — not intestacy law standing alone — controls distribution of the trust’s assets.
- A court-appointed successor trustee who is a stranger to the family has no inherent claim to trust assets; trust assets are distributed according to the trust instrument, not to the trustee.
- A disinheriting clause in a will does not extend to a separately created trust executed on the same day; each instrument is interpreted independently according to its own terms.
Why It Matters
This case provides important guidance for Ohio estate planning and trust administration practitioners on the interaction between wills and trusts executed contemporaneously. The holding that each document must be read independently prevents a will’s disinheriting clause from overriding a trust’s distribution provisions. The case also reinforces that court-appointed trustees serve as fiduciaries, not beneficiaries, and have no claim to trust assets for their own benefit. Estate planners should review trust documents to ensure residual provisions clearly address the scenario where all named beneficiaries predecease the trust.