In re Fleet National Bank’s Appeal from Probate
Connecticut Supreme Court
837 A.2d 785 (2004)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
The John B. Faile Trust was created in 1966 for the benefit of beneficiaries (defendants), and James J. Preble and United Bank and Trust Company (United) were named co-trustees. Preble died, and United was the sole trustee. After a corporate merger, Fleet National Bank (Fleet) (plaintiff) became the trustee. In 2001, the beneficiaries filed a petition in probate court to remove Fleet as trustee under Connecticut General Statutes § 45a-242(a)(4) and to install Putnam Trust as trustee. The probate court removed Fleet as trustee, noting that, although the previous version of § 45a-242(a) allowed the removal of a fiduciary only if the fiduciary either lacked the capacity to perform the duties or was neglectful of those duties, the amended version of the statute added subdivision (4), which allowed the removal of the fiduciary if there had been a change in circumstances or removal was requested by all of the beneficiaries, the court found that removal best served the beneficiaries’ interests and was not inconsistent with the trust’s material purpose, and a suitable successor fiduciary or cofiduciary was available. The probate court found that the beneficiaries unanimously desired for Fleet to be removed, Fleet’s removal was in the beneficiaries’ best interests because Putnam already administered other trusts for the beneficiaries and would be most efficient, Putnam’s services were more personalized, Putnam’s fees were lower, Fleet’s removal did not conflict with the trust’s material purpose, the settlor did not choose Fleet to administer the trust, and the trust did not vest any special discretion in the trustee such that Fleet was the only trustee capable of handling administration. Fleet appealed the probate court’s order, and the trial court dismissed Fleet’s appeal, holding that § 45a-243 did not confer on Fleet’s standing to appeal because that section was implicated only when a fiduciary had been removed for cause, and a removal under § 45a-242(a) was not for cause. Fleet sought review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Norcott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
