The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Moffat v. Srebro, docket number 2025-0048, which addresses a family dispute over the distribution of trust property. The court affirmed a lower court's decision that awarded a family property to one sibling while requiring another sibling to reimburse the trust for legal fees. This ruling affects the three siblings involved in the case, highlighting the complexities of trust administration and family dynamics.
The case centers around Nathaniel Moffat, the trustee of the Pamela Dawson Moffat Revocable Trust, and his siblings Sarah Srebro and Matthew Moffat. After the death of their parents, the siblings found themselves in disagreement over the distribution of trust property, leading to legal action. This dispute was complicated by allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against Nathaniel, who was managing the trust.
The conflict began after the death of the siblings' father in 2020 and their mother in 2021. Their mother’s will, probated in Maryland, specified that her tangible personal property should be divided equally among the three siblings, with the remainder going to the trust. Nathaniel, as the executor of the will and trustee of the trust, filed a petition in June 2023 to partition real estate owned by the trust, which included two properties: a colonial home on 20 acres and an adjacent 5-acre parcel, as well as another home on nearly 6 acres.
In his petition, Nathaniel claimed that the siblings could not agree on how to divide the trust's real estate and sought a court order to distribute the properties. Sarah responded by filing counterclaims against Nathaniel, alleging that he had breached his fiduciary duties as trustee. The probate court held a four-day trial, during which both sides presented their arguments regarding the trust and the properties involved.
The probate court ultimately ruled in favor of Sarah, awarding her the 34 Kings Highway property and granting Nathaniel the 33 Kings Highway property. The court also determined that Nathaniel had breached his duties as trustee by occupying trust property without paying rent and not distributing the property equitably. As a remedy, the court ordered Nathaniel to reimburse the trust for all attorney’s fees and expenses incurred during the litigation.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the lower court’s findings and concluded that the probate court had acted within its jurisdiction and that its decisions were supported by the evidence. The court stated, “the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the court’s discretionary partition ruling.” The justices emphasized that the probate court had considered the relationship dynamics among the siblings when making its decision on property distribution.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s decision to award the 34 Kings Highway property to Sarah. The court found that there was no rational basis for denying Sarah the property, as she had a genuine connection to it and neither of her siblings had expressed a desire to keep it. The court also noted that the trust had sufficient assets to offset the distribution of the property.
Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the decision requiring Nathaniel to reimburse the trust for legal fees. The court noted that Nathaniel had not adequately preserved his arguments regarding the reimbursement order, as he failed to raise these issues during the trial. The court ruled, “Any issues the appellants raised in their respective notices of appeal but did not brief are deemed waived.”
This ruling emphasizes the importance of fiduciary duties in trust administration and the consequences of failing to uphold those responsibilities. It also highlights the challenges that can arise in family disputes over inheritance and property distribution.
Moving forward, the decision sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar disputes involving trust administration and family dynamics. It reinforces the notion that trustees must act in the best interest of the beneficiaries and be transparent in their dealings. The ruling may also influence future cases involving the partition of property held in trust, particularly in situations where family relationships are strained.
As for what’s next, the parties involved in this case may have the option to appeal the ruling, but the Supreme Court's decision is typically final unless there are grounds for further review. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or appeals.