The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled on June 12, 2026, that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to remove a trustee from the Withers Family Trust. This decision affects Andrew J. Withers, who sought the removal of his sister, Rosalind Withers, from her role as trustee. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction in trust administration cases.
The case, Andrew J. Withers v. Withers Collection, Inc. (Docket No. W2024-01929-COA-R3-CV), originated from a dispute over the administration of the Withers Family Trust, established by Ernest C. Withers, a renowned photographer. The trust was created to benefit his wife and children. Following the deaths of Ernest and his wife, disagreements arose among the beneficiaries regarding the trust's management.
Andrew Withers and his brother, Billy Withers, previously filed a lawsuit in 2012 seeking to dissolve the trust but settled, agreeing to maintain the trust and allowing Rosalind to remain as trustee. However, Andrew later filed a complaint in 2018 seeking Rosalind's removal, alleging breaches of her fiduciary duties. The case was eventually transferred to the circuit court after the chancellors in the original court recused themselves due to conflicts of interest.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals found that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Judge Carma Dennis McGee stated, "The circuit court's determination that the style of the action indicated it did not concern the administration of the trust conflicted with the terms of the TUTC." The court emphasized that the claims raised by Andrew Withers were directly related to the administration of the trust, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of chancery and probate courts in Tennessee.
The court's decision to vacate the circuit court's ruling and remand the case back to the chancery court underscores the importance of proper jurisdiction in trust matters. The ruling clarifies that any proceedings involving the administration of a trust, including the removal of a trustee, must be handled by the appropriate court.
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved. Andrew Withers may need to pursue his claims in the chancery court, where the case originally began. The decision also sets a precedent for future cases involving trust administration, reinforcing the need for parties to adhere to jurisdictional requirements.
Going forward, the case will return to the chancery court, where it will be assigned to a chancellor or another judge sitting by interchange. The court's ruling does not prevent Judge Hurd from being designated to hear the case through proper procedures.