The Tennessee Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling in a trust dispute case involving Rosanne S. Feltus and Douglas B. Wright. The court’s decision, issued on October 13, 2026, addresses the complexities surrounding a marital dissolution agreement and the subsequent management of two trusts. This ruling impacts individuals involved in similar trust and divorce matters, particularly concerning the roles and responsibilities of trustees.
The case stems from a divorce proceeding between Rosanne and her former husband, Michael Feltus, in which the couple agreed to dissolve two trusts. The trusts were created to manage life insurance policies, with Douglas Wright serving as the trustee. The court's ruling clarifies the legal obligations of trustees and beneficiaries in the context of divorce and trust administration.
The dispute began when Rosanne Feltus filed for divorce on September 27, 2016. As part of their marital dissolution agreement, both parties agreed to terminate the trusts and distribute the assets to Rosanne. However, the agreement was complicated by the fact that not all parties involved in the trusts were included in the divorce proceedings. This oversight led to legal complications when Rosanne attempted to enforce the agreement.
After the divorce was finalized in June 2017, Rosanne filed a lawsuit in the Shelby County Circuit Court against Douglas Wright, the trustee, and the other beneficiaries of the trusts. She sought to enforce the terms of the marital dissolution agreement. However, the circuit court entered default judgments against the defendants, which led to Wright filing a motion to set aside the judgment, claiming he was misled about the nature of the lawsuit.
Following the circuit court's decision to set aside the default judgment against Wright, Rosanne initiated a new lawsuit in the chancery court. Here, Wright filed a countercomplaint seeking trustee’s fees and attorneys’ fees. Both parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, which the chancery court addressed.
The court ruled in favor of Douglas Wright, granting his motion for summary judgment and denying Rosanne's motion. The court found that Rosanne had breached the settlement agreements by filing lawsuits against Wright and failing to pay his fees. Judge Carma Dennis McGee, who delivered the opinion of the court, stated, "The agreements constituted enforceable contracts, and Ms. Feltus breached those contracts by filing two lawsuits against Mr. Wright."
The court's ruling also highlighted that the hold harmless provisions in the trust documents protected Wright from claims made by beneficiaries, further solidifying his position. The court concluded that Wright was entitled to recover his fees and expenses under the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code, which supports the payment of trustee fees incurred during trust administration.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving trust administration and divorce proceedings. It emphasizes the importance of including all relevant parties in legal agreements and proceedings, particularly in divorce cases where trusts are involved. The decision reinforces the legal protections available to trustees when managing trust assets and responding to litigation.
Moving forward, this case sets a precedent for how similar disputes may be resolved in Tennessee courts. It clarifies the legal responsibilities of trustees and the rights of beneficiaries, particularly in the context of divorce settlements. The ruling serves as a reminder for individuals involved in trust agreements to ensure that all parties are adequately represented and included in legal proceedings to avoid complications.
As for the future of this case, it is possible for Rosanne Feltus to appeal the ruling. However, the court's decision appears to be firmly grounded in the law, which may limit the grounds for a successful appeal. The court has also indicated that additional motions regarding fees and sanctions may still be pending, which could further shape the outcome of this legal dispute.