In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York modified a ruling that removed Mark Simmons as a co-trustee of the Eugene and Pearl Simmons Irrevocable Income Only Trust. The court's ruling, issued on July 24, 2026, affects the management of the trust and the responsibilities of its trustees. This case highlights the legal complexities involved in trust management and the rights of co-trustees.
The dispute arose when Mark Simmons, who served as a co-trustee alongside Michael and Marcia Simmons, was accused of misconduct by the other co-trustees. They alleged that Mark improperly removed trust assets and interfered with leasing trust property. This matter was filed under docket number 501 CA 24-00956 and was heard by a panel of judges including Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, Delconte, and Hannah.
The case began when Michael and Marcia Simmons petitioned the Surrogate's Court in Onondaga County seeking Mark's removal as co-trustee. They claimed that his actions violated his fiduciary duties. In response, Mark Simmons denied the allegations and filed a cross-petition, seeking to dismiss the claims against him and to remove his co-trustees.
The Surrogate's Court initially ruled in favor of Michael and Marcia Simmons, partially granting their petition and removing Mark as co-trustee. However, Mark appealed this decision, arguing that the court had not properly considered the evidence he presented.
In its ruling, the Appellate Division determined that the Surrogate's Court had erred in removing Mark Simmons without a hearing. The court stated, "The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 [or] 719 is equivalent to 'a judicial nullification of the [settlor's] choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established.'" The judges emphasized that a hearing was necessary to assess the credibility of the claims made by both parties.
The court explained that Mark had submitted an affidavit denying any wrongdoing and had provided explanations for his actions regarding the trust. The Appellate Division noted that since there were conflicting claims about Mark's conduct, a hearing was required to resolve these disputes. The judges stated that the Surrogate must make a credibility determination concerning those issues.
As a result, the court modified the previous decree by vacating the part that removed Mark Simmons as co-trustee. The court affirmed other parts of the decree and remitted the matter back to the Surrogate's Court for further proceedings. This means that the case will continue in the lower court, where a hearing will be held to address the allegations against Mark Simmons.
This ruling has significant implications for trust management and the rights of co-trustees. It underscores the importance of due process in fiduciary matters and the necessity of hearings when there are disputed facts. The decision also reinforces the principle that trustees have certain protections against removal without clear evidence of misconduct.
Going forward, this case will impact how similar disputes are handled in the future. It establishes that co-trustees cannot be removed without a thorough examination of the facts and a proper hearing. This ruling may serve as a precedent for other cases involving trust management and the responsibilities of fiduciaries.
As for what’s next, the matter will return to the Surrogate's Court for further proceedings. It is unclear whether there are any additional related cases pending at this time. The outcome of the upcoming hearing will determine whether Mark Simmons will remain a co-trustee or if further actions will be taken against him.