The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to modify five trusts set up for Sandra L.A. Price, affirming the removal of her ex-husband, David Epstein, from the trusts' advisory committees. The ruling, issued on January 16, 2026, in case number L-25-00242, resolves a contentious dispute over control of the trusts, which had become a focal point in their divorce proceedings. This decision is significant as it clarifies the powers of fiduciaries and the rights of beneficiaries in trust management.
The case began when Price filed a complaint in December 2021, seeking to remove Epstein from his position on the advisory committees of the trusts. She accused him of mismanaging trust assets, hiding information, and violating his fiduciary duties. Price alleged that Epstein was using trust funds for personal expenses and controlling access to trust distributions, which she claimed were detrimental to her interests as a beneficiary.
Epstein countered Price's claims, arguing that he was improperly removed from the advisory committees without the required consent from the majority of members. He also filed counterclaims against Price, alleging that she had committed breaches of trust by making unauthorized expenditures from the trusts for her personal benefit. The case escalated, involving various motions and counterclaims as both parties sought to assert control over the trusts.
In a pivotal move, the trial court appointed a special fiduciary, First Trust Company LLC, to manage the trusts and suspended the advisory committees. This decision was made to ensure that the trusts could function amid the ongoing disputes regarding their management. Price supported the appointment, while Epstein raised objections, arguing that the court lacked the authority to make such changes without evidence of a breach of trust.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the modification of the trusts was necessary and appropriate. In its judgment, the court stated, "the modification was with the consent of all beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trusts." The court acknowledged that it had initially misapplied the law regarding the statutory basis for its decision but clarified that the correct statute, R.C. 5804.11(B), allowed for such modifications.
The ruling has significant implications for trust management and the rights of beneficiaries. It underscores the importance of fiduciary duties and the need for transparency in the management of trust assets. The court's decision also highlights the complexities involved in trust modifications, especially when disputes arise among beneficiaries and fiduciaries.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in Ohio, particularly regarding the authority of courts to intervene in trust management when disputes arise. It reinforces the notion that courts can take necessary actions to protect the interests of beneficiaries and ensure the proper administration of trusts.
As for next steps, Epstein has the option to appeal the ruling, although the court has already indicated that the modifications are valid under the applicable statutes. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the outcome of this case may influence future disputes involving trust management and beneficiary rights.