Utah Court of Appeals
Can co-trustees sue without unanimous consent under Utah trust law? Westling Family Trust v. Westling Explained
Summary
Two co-trustees of a family trust sued their brother Mark to collect a debt he owed the trust. Their mother Dorothy, also a co-trustee with administrative control under the trust instrument, intervened and moved to dismiss, arguing she had not consented to the lawsuit. The district court granted the dismissal, finding the plaintiff co-trustees lacked authority to bring suit without Dorothy’s consent.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about trustee authority and standing in trust litigation in Westling Family Trust v. Westling. The case demonstrates how specific trust instrument provisions can override general statutory authority under the Utah Uniform Trust Code.
Background and Facts: Two sisters serving as co-trustees of their family trust sued their brother Mark to collect approximately $47,000 he owed the trust from a failed home loan. Their mother Dorothy, also a co-trustee, lived with Mark in Arizona and had not consented to the lawsuit. Dorothy successfully intervened in the action and moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff co-trustees lacked authority to bring the suit without her consent.
Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether co-trustees could initiate litigation on behalf of a trust without unanimous or majority consent, particularly when the trust instrument granted one co-trustee special administrative authority. The court also addressed whether Dorothy’s intervention was proper under Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. While the Utah Uniform Trust Code generally allows co-trustees to act by majority decision, the trust instrument here specifically granted Dorothy control over trust administration. Article XIV provided that when co-trustees disagreed, “the decision of Dorothy E. Westling shall govern so long as she is alive and competent.” Since Dorothy clearly opposed the litigation through her intervention and dismissal motion, the plaintiff co-trustees lacked authority to proceed.
Practice Implications: This decision underscores the importance of carefully reviewing trust instruments before initiating litigation. Trust-specific provisions trump general UTC authority, and practitioners must ensure proper authorization exists before filing suit on behalf of a trust. The case also highlights that trustee duties can include prudential considerations—Dorothy’s concern about depleting trust assets through potentially uncollectible litigation was deemed reasonable, not a breach of fiduciary duty.
Case Details
Case Name
Westling Family Trust v. Westling
Citation
2010 UT App 291
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090970-CA
Date Decided
October 21, 2010
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Co-trustees who lack majority consent or controlling authority under a trust instrument do not have standing to bring suit on behalf of the trust when another co-trustee with administrative control objects to the litigation.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for the district court’s dismissal ruling
Practice Tip
When representing co-trustees, carefully examine the trust instrument for provisions that grant administrative control to specific trustees, as these may override general UTC provisions regarding majority decisions.
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.