Utah Supreme Court
When must trustees file petitions rather than motions for fee approval? Kunkler v. Key Bank Explained
Summary
KeyBank sought over $4.7 million in trustee fees after completing land sales for the Irrevocable Jack W. Kunkler Trust. William Kunkler demanded a jury trial on the fee issue, but the district court denied the demand as untimely under Rule 38. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that KeyBank’s motion to resign as trustee improperly injected the fee issue into the litigation rather than properly invoking court jurisdiction through a petition.
Analysis
Background and Facts
KeyBank served as trustee of the Irrevocable Jack W. Kunkler Trust, which required investment in raw undeveloped land in Salt Lake County with decennial sales of 25-30% of the trust’s land holdings. After completing two land sales worth over $46 million, KeyBank filed a motion to resign as trustee and requested over $4.7 million in trustee fees—the maximum 10% allowed under the trust terms for unimproved property sales. William Kunkler, the Class II Trustee, opposed the fee request and demanded a jury trial on February 28, 2008, one day after indicating his desire for a jury at a hearing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Kunkler’s jury demand was timely under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), which requires jury demands within ten days of “the last pleading directed to such issue.” The district court determined that Kunkler’s May 2007 petition to remove KeyBank as trustee was the last pleading addressing trustee fees, making the February 2008 jury demand untimely. Additionally, the case raised questions about proper court jurisdiction over trust administration under Utah Code section 75-7-201.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, applying the correctness standard to questions of law regarding statutory and rule interpretation. The court held that under Utah Code section 75-7-201, courts have jurisdiction over trust administration only when “invoked by interested parties” through proper pleading. KeyBank’s motion to resign improperly injected the fee issue into the litigation—trustee fee disputes must be raised by petition, not motion. Since KeyBank’s February 13, 2008 motion was the first filing specifying the fee amount, and it should have been treated as a petition, Kunkler’s February 28, 2008 jury demand was timely.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that trustees seeking court approval of fees must invoke jurisdiction through proper petition rather than motion. The ten-day period for jury demands under Rule 38(b) begins running from service of such petition. Practitioners should ensure trustee fee disputes are properly pleaded to preserve jury trial rights and avoid jurisdictional challenges. The ruling also reinforces that courts lack inherent jurisdiction over trust administration matters absent proper invocation by interested parties.
Case Details
Case Name
Kunkler v. Key Bank
Citation
2011 UT 7
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20090514
Date Decided
January 21, 2011
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Under Utah Code section 75-7-201, a court’s jurisdiction to supervise trust administration is subject to invocation by interested parties through pleading, and KeyBank’s motion to resign improperly injected a new issue that should have been raised by petition, making the jury demand timely.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including district court’s interpretations of Utah statutes and rules of procedure, and characterization of a party’s filing
Practice Tip
When trustees seek court approval of fees or other compensation, they must invoke court jurisdiction through proper petition rather than motion, and opposing parties have ten days from service of such petition to demand jury trial under Rule 38.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.