Hubbry Logo
TrusteeTrusteeMain
Open search
Trustee
Community hub
Trustee
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Trustee
Trustee
Trustee
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
For other uses of "trustee", "trusty", and related terms, see Trustee (disambiguation).
"Trusteeship" redirects here. For other uses, see Trusteeship (disambiguation).
Wills, trusts
and estates
Part of the common law series
Wills
Trusts

Governing doctrines

Estate administration
Related topics

Trustee (or the holding of a trusteeship) is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, refers to anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any individual who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility for the benefit of another. A trustee can also be a person who is allowed to do certain tasks but not able to gain income.[1] Although in the strictest sense of the term a trustee is the holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary,[1] the more expansive sense encompasses persons who serve, for example, on the board of trustees of an institution that operates for a charity, for the benefit of the general public, or a person in the local government.

A trust can be set up either to benefit particular persons or for any charitable purposes (but not generally for non-charitable purposes): typical examples are a will trust for the testator's children and family, a pension trust (to confer benefits on employees and their families) and a charitable trust. In all cases, the trustee may be a person or company, regardless of whether they are a prospective beneficiary.

General duties of trustees

[edit]
Chart of a trust

Trustees[2] have certain duties (some of which are fiduciary). These include the duty to:

  • Carry out the expressed terms of the trust instrument.[3] Trustees are bound to act in accordance with the terms of the trusts upon which the trustee holds trust property, and not commit a breach of trust by departing from the terms of the trust.[4] However, a trustee may act otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the trust if all beneficiaries, being sui juris and together absolutely entitled, direct the trustee to do so (or so consent). If any question arises as to the constriction of the provisions of the trust, the trustee must approach the court for determination of the question.
  • Defend the trust
  • Prudently invest trust assets (in New South Wales, this is mandated by the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW)[5]).
  • Be impartial among beneficiaries: the trustee must act impartially between individual beneficiaries[6] as well as between different classes of beneficiaries.
  • Account for actions and keep beneficiaries informed: these include a duty to inform beneficiaries as to their entitlements under the trust[7] and other matters concerning the trust. Trustees do not have priority right to trust documents; it is a personal right and cannot be assigned[8] The right to seek disclosure of trust documents is an aspect of the court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise the administration of trusts.[9] As trustees as not under a duty to disclose their reasoning in applying a trust power (unless the trust instrument requires otherwise), there is no duty to disclose any documents dealing with the decision making promise.[10] Protection of confidentiality has been described as 'one of the most important limitations on the right to disclose of trust documents'. 'Memoranda or letter of wishes' do not necessarily need to be disclosed to a beneficiary if they are of a number of potential beneficiaries.
  • Be loyal
  • Not delegate
  • Not profit; however, may charge fees for services to the Trust [11]
  • Not be in a conflict of interest position
  • Administer in the best interest of the beneficiaries

The modern interpretation of fiduciary duty requires the consideration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors as these are long-term investment value drivers.[12] When evaluating whether an institutional investor has delivered on its fiduciary duties, both the outcomes achieved and the process followed are of critical importance.

The terms of the instrument that creates the trust may narrow or expand these duties—but in most instances, they cannot be eliminated. Corporate trustees, typically trust departments at large banks, often have very narrow duties, limited to those the trust indenture explicitly defines.

A trustee carries the fiduciary responsibility and liability to use the trust assets according to the provisions of the trust instrument (and often regardless of their own or the beneficiaries' wishes). The trustee may find himself liable to claimants, prospective beneficiaries, or third parties. If a trustee incurs a liability (for example, in litigation, for taxes, or under the terms of a lease) in excess of the trust property they hold, then they may find themselves personally liable for the excess.

Trustees are generally held to a "prudent person" standard in regard to meeting their fiduciary responsibilities, though investment, legal, and other professionals can, in some jurisdictions, be held to a higher standard commensurate with their higher expertise.[13]-Trustees can be paid for their time and trouble in performing their duties only if the trust specifically provides for payment. It is common for lawyers to draft will trusts so as to permit such payment, and to take office accordingly: this may be an unnecessary expense for small estates.

In an exception to the duties outlined above, sabbatical officers of students' unions who are also trustees of these organisations they work for do have the right to a salary (and hence profit from their being a trustee). This is an exception explicitly granted in the 1993 act[14]

Other uses

[edit]

The most comprehensive sense of the term trustee applies to someone held to a fiduciary duty similar in some respects to that of a trustee proper. For example, the directors of a bank may be trustees for the depositors, directors of a corporation are trustees for the stockholders and a guardian is trustee of his ward's property. Many corporations call their governing board a board of trustees, though in those cases they act as a board of directors.

Charities in the United Kingdom

[edit]

In the case of UK charities, a trustee is a volunteer who undertakes fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of the charity, subject to the provisions of Charity Law, a branch of trust law, and the Charities Act 1993.[15] For charity trustees, the Charity Commission of England and Wales, Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator of Scotland and Voluntary Activity Unit of Northern Ireland often has concurrent jurisdiction with the courts. Many UK charities are also limited liability companies registered with Companies House, in this case the trustees are also directors of the company and their liability is limited. This is the preferred model if the charity owns property or employs people.

The law on this in England changed considerably with the Charities Act 2006.[16] One of the key changes made was the creation of Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs), which are basically charities with limited liability. There are thus now two main aspects of corporate management of charities:

  • One is the traditional way in which a corporation is a corporate trustee of a given charity.
  • The second is the new form, in which the charity itself is incorporated as a CIO.[clarification needed]

The advantages and disadvantages of the different methods are a complicated matter. According to King and Phillips, many of the advantages of incorporating as a CIO are obtained if the trustees are not individuals but a corporate entity.[17]

Local government in the United States

[edit]

Depending on the state, a trustee is a member of the village board of trustees, which is a village's elected legislative body as outlined by local or state law. It can be composed of the mayor and a set number of trustees and usually manages village property, finances, safety, health, comfort, and general welfare and leadership of the town (acting as a board of police or fire commissioners or a moderate income housing board, for example). Village board of trustees is comparable to but distinguished from city council or town council. Small villages have a trustee instead of a mayor, who is elected to manage village business in a similar function.

In some states, a civil township may be administered by a trustee or a group of trustees; see Indiana Township Trustee for an example.

Bankruptcy trustee

[edit]

In the United States, when a consumer or business files for bankruptcy all property belonging to the filer becomes property of a newly created entity, the "bankruptcy estate". (See 11 U.S.C. § 541.) For all bankruptcies (consumer or business) filed under Chapter 7, 12 or 13 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code), a trustee (the "trustee in bankruptcy" or TIB) is appointed by the United States Trustee, an officer of the Department of Justice that is charged with ensuring the integrity of the bankruptcy system and with representatives in each court, to manage the property of the bankruptcy estate, including bringing actions to avoid pre-bankruptcy transfers of property. In bankruptcies filed under Chapter 11, the debtor continues to manage the property of the bankruptcy estate, as "debtor in possession", subject to replacement for cause with a trustee.

Chapter 7 trustees in bankruptcy are chosen by the United States Trustee from a panel, and are known as panel trustees. Every judicial district has a permanent Chapter 13 trustee, known as a "standing trustee". As cases under Chapter 12 (for family farmers or fishermen) are filed fairly infrequently, the United States Trustee usually makes trustee appointments in such cases on an ad hoc basis.

UK legislation

[edit]

Relevant legislation includes:

United Nations

[edit]
Further information: United Nations Trusteeship Council

See also

[edit]
Look up trustee in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Trustee

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A is a or appointed, or required , to execute a trust by holding legal to property, assets, or powers vested under an express or implied trust for the benefit of . This role originates from principles separating legal and equitable ownership, enabling the trustee to manage trust property according to the settlor's intentions while prioritizing beneficiary interests over personal gain. Trustees are bound by core fiduciary duties, including —to avoid conflicts of interest and — in and administration akin to a standard, and among beneficiaries. Breaches of these duties, such as mismanagement or unauthorized profits, expose trustees to personal liability for restitution or removal by courts. Common types include individual trustees, often family members or advisors selected for personal knowledge, and corporate or institutional trustees, such as banks, valued for professional expertise and longevity in long-term administrations. Trustees may also arise statutorily, as in proceedings where they liquidate assets for creditors.

Definition and Historical Origins

Core Definition and Etymology

A is a or legal appointed by a (also known as a grantor or trustor) to hold legal to or assets placed in a trust, with the obligation to manage, invest, and distribute those assets exclusively for the benefit of designated beneficiaries in accordance with the trust's terms. This role vests the trustee with authority to execute the trust's purpose while maintaining separation between legal ownership (held by the trustee) and equitable or (held by beneficiaries). Trustees may be individuals, corporations, or institutions, and their appointment can arise from express trusts created by agreement or implied trusts imposed by , such as in cases of constructive trusts to remedy . The trustee's core function emphasizes fiduciary accountability, requiring actions that prioritize beneficiaries' interests over personal gain, a principle codified in jurisdictions like and the . For instance, under U.S. federal , a trustee is defined as the party legally committed to administer trust for beneficiaries' benefit, underscoring the role's statutory reinforcement. This definition distinguishes trustees from executors, who handle estates rather than ongoing trust administration. Etymologically, "trustee" originated in the 1640s as a compound of the verb "trust" (from Old English trýstan, meaning to rely on or confide) and the suffix "-ee" (indicating the object or recipient of the action, as in "payee"). The term denotes one to whom trust is committed, specifically for overseeing another's property or interests. Its earliest documented use appears in 1636 English legal writing, reflecting the emerging formalization of trust arrangements in early modern common law. This linguistic evolution parallels the institutional development of trusts as mechanisms for asset protection and succession, distinct from outright transfers of ownership.

Medieval and Early Modern Development

The concept of the trustee originated in medieval through the mechanism known as the "use," where land was conveyed to a to hold to the use of another party, the use, thereby separating legal title from beneficial enjoyment. This practice emerged prominently in the during the , as knights departing for the transferred property to trusted associates to manage or preserve it for their families, avoiding feudal wardship, fines, and other incidents that burdened heirs under . Ecclesiastical influences were significant, as the Church employed uses to circumvent statutes prohibiting perpetual land ownership by religious bodies, allowing donors to retain equitable interests while vesting legal title in lay feoffees. courts refused to enforce these uses, viewing them as nudum pactum (bare agreements) without consideration, but the began intervening by the mid-14th century to compel feoffees to honor their promises through equitable remedies like . In the , the role of the trustee solidified amid tensions between equity and . The , enacted in 1535 under , sought to abolish passive uses by executing them—merging legal and equitable titles in the —to restore royal revenues diminished by feudal evasions. However, the statute applied only to uses without active duties on the feoffee; practitioners circumvented it by drafting conveyances imposing ongoing obligations, such as management, collection of rents, or discretionary distributions, thereby preserving the dual-title structure and evolving the "use" into the modern trust with the feoffee as trustee bearing responsibilities. Chancery courts upheld these active trusts, developing doctrines of , including and , to bind trustees, as seen in cases where chancellors enforced accounts and restrained by the mid-16th century. This adaptation ensured the trustee's role as a agent persisted, influencing subsequent equity and distinguishing trusts from mere legal estates.

Evolution in Common Law

The trustee's role in common law originated in medieval through the device known as a "use," emerging in the 12th and 13th centuries amid the and feudal constraints. Knights and landowners conveyed legal title to reliable associates, termed feoffees to uses, to hold and manage estates during absences or to evade feudal burdens like payments, wardships, and escheats enforced by rigid rules on property descent. The feoffee acted as a nominal holder, with the conveyance "to the use of" the grantor or designated , who retained an implied equitable claim enforceable only through initially. This split between legal title (held by the trustee) and equitable interest (enjoyed by the ) addressed 's inflexibility, which prioritized formal over intent. By the mid-14th century, the , under the , began systematically enforcing uses against defaulting feoffees, transforming the trustee into a accountable on grounds of rather than contractual privity. courts, bound by writs and precedents, declined jurisdiction over such equitable claims, deeming them outside strict legal doctrines, thus confining trustee to equity's supplemental . Chancery's intervention compelled trustees to account for profits, reconvey , or fulfill the use's purpose, establishing early fiduciary restraints like avoidance of to prevent abuse of the dual- structure. This equitable evolution persisted despite resistance, as uses proliferated for purposes including evasion and intergenerational transfers. The Statute of Uses in 1535 aimed to abolish passive uses by executing the beneficiary's interest into legal title, but trustees adapted by imposing active duties—such as and —creating the modern trust distinct from mere uses. Equity courts upheld these arrangements, recognizing trustees' ongoing obligations where passive execution failed, particularly for commercial and charitable ends. Over the 17th and 18th centuries, precedents further delineated the trustee's position, emphasizing undivided loyalty and prudence; for example, equity prohibited trustees from retaining secret profits, as seen in evolving doctrines against conflicting interests that paralleled but overrode common law's tolerance for arm's-length dealings. This bifurcation endured, with trustees bearing legal ownership's defenses (e.g., against creditors) while equity imposed stringent personal liabilities. In the , as personalty supplanted land in trusts, judicial refinements and statutes like the Trustee Act 1925 () codified duties without supplanting equitable foundations, adapting the trustee to industrialized economies with diversified investments. jurisdictions, including the post-colonial adoption, inherited this framework, where trustees evolved from feudal stewards to professional fiduciaries under case law mandating diversification and impartiality, reflecting causal shifts from agrarian rigidity to influences.

Fiduciary Duties and Responsibilities

Duty of Loyalty and Avoidance of Conflicts

The duty of loyalty obliges a trustee to administer the trust solely in the interests of the beneficiaries, excluding any personal advantage or competing obligations to third parties. This principle, rooted in , demands undivided allegiance to prevent even the appearance of divided loyalties, as any conflict undermines the relationship's integrity. Central to this duty is the prohibition on , where a trustee enters transactions involving trust that personally benefit them, such as purchasing trust assets or borrowing trust funds. constitutes a breach regardless of fairness or lack of harm to the trust, rendering the transaction voidable at the beneficiaries' election and requiring the trustee to disgorge any profits obtained. For instance, in Keech v. Sandford (1726), a trustee who failed to renew a for an infant 's benefit but secured it personally was held to hold the renewed on constructive trust for the , illustrating the rule's strictness: trustees cannot exploit opportunities denied to the trust, even without . Beyond self-dealing, trustees must avoid broader conflicts, including competing with the trust, receiving secret commissions from third parties, or favoring personal associates in trust dealings. Such conflicts trigger a presumption of disloyalty, shifting the burden to the trustee to prove the transaction's propriety through full disclosure and, where permitted, beneficiary consent or court approval. Exceptions are narrow: prior settlor authorization in the trust instrument or informed consent from all qualified beneficiaries may validate certain acts, but judicial oversight often remains required to safeguard against coercion or undue influence. Breaches of expose trustees to personal for losses, restitution of gains, and potential removal, emphasizing the duty's role in preserving trust assets' impartial management. Empirical analysis of fiduciary litigation reveals as a leading cause of claims, with courts consistently enforcing the no-conflict rule to deter inherent in trustees' control over others' .

Duty of Prudence in Asset Management

The duty of prudence requires trustees to invest and manage trust assets with the care, skill, , and that a reasonably prudent would exercise under similar circumstances, prioritizing the trust's purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and needs. This standard, distinct from the older "prudent man" rule that evaluated investments in isolation, adopts a approach, assessing the overall risk and return objectives of the entire trust portfolio rather than individual holdings. Trustees must avoid speculative or unduly risky investments unless justified by the trust's objectives, such as growth for future beneficiaries versus preservation for current income needs. Central to this duty is the requirement to diversify investments unless special circumstances, like trust instrument restrictions or asset illiquidity, render it imprudent; diversification aims to minimize unsystematic while balancing expected returns against potential losses. Trustees evaluate factors including general economic conditions, the and role of specific assets in the portfolio, expected total return ( and appreciation), effects, implications, regulatory requirements, and the beneficiaries' unique circumstances, such as age, financial needs, and tolerance. For instance, a trustee managing a trust for elderly beneficiaries might allocate more to fixed-income securities for stability, while one for younger heirs could incorporate equities for growth, always documenting decisions to demonstrate compliance. Delegation of investment functions is permitted under statutes like the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA), adopted in over 40 U.S. states by 2023, allowing trustees to hire professional advisors but imposing a to select, monitor, and retain them prudently based on expertise, fees, and performance. Trustees retain ultimate responsibility and must periodically review investments, adjusting for changes in market conditions or trust needs; failure to do so, such as ignoring prolonged underperformance, constitutes a breach. In the UK, the Trustee Act 2000 codifies a statutory for , requiring trustees to exercise reasonable skill and care—elevated for professionals with specialized knowledge—while considering similar portfolio-wide factors, though without explicit UPIA-style diversification mandates unless implied by prudence. Breaches often arise from inaction, such as neglecting to diversify concentrated holdings (e.g., retaining a single comprising over 50% of assets without rationale) or chasing high-risk trends without , leading to liability for losses recoverable by beneficiaries. Courts assess ex , based on available at decision time, not hindsight; empirical studies post-UPIA adoption show increased equity allocations by trustees, correlating with higher long-term returns but elevated volatility risks. Compliance demands rigorous documentation, including policy statements outlining strategy, risk parameters, and review processes, to withstand scrutiny.

Duties of Impartiality, Administration, and Reporting

Trustees owe a duty of impartiality to multiple beneficiaries, requiring them to administer the trust without undue favoritism, particularly balancing the interests of income beneficiaries—who receive periodic distributions—and remaindermen, who hold future interests in the principal. This duty, rooted in common law principles codified in statutes such as Virginia Code § 64.2-765 and Florida Statutes § 736.0803, mandates impartiality in investing, managing, and distributing trust property while considering beneficiaries' circumstances and the trust's purposes. Breaches occur when trustees allocate assets or income disproportionately, such as overly aggressive investments favoring growth over current yield without justification. Administrative duties encompass the trustee's obligation to execute the trust according to its terms and applicable , including prudent management of assets to preserve value and generate reasonable returns. This involves collecting and securing trust property, paying valid debts, taxes, and expenses from trust funds, and making distributions as directed, often requiring retention of professionals like attorneys or accountants for complex tasks. Trustees must avoid or unauthorized uses of assets, ensuring all actions align solely with beneficiaries' interests rather than personal gain. In practice, administration begins upon the settlor's or trust activation, spanning asset valuation, investment oversight, and compliance with fiduciary standards like those in the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, which emphasize diversification and . Reporting duties require trustees to maintain accurate records and provide beneficiaries with periodic accountings detailing assets, liabilities, , expenses, transactions, and distributions, typically annually or upon request. This transparency, a fiduciary obligation reinforced in most U.S. states, enables beneficiaries to monitor performance and detect breaches, with reports often including balance sheets, statements, and explanations of discretionary decisions. Failure to report can lead to court-ordered accountings or surcharge liability, as trustees bear the burden of proving proper administration through verifiable .

Types of Trustees

Private and Family Trustees

Private trustees are individuals, rather than corporate entities, appointed to manage and administer assets held in private trusts established for personal, family, or purposes. Unlike institutional trustees such as banks or trust companies, private trustees often include members, friends, or professional advisors selected for their personal familiarity with the settlor's intentions and beneficiaries' circumstances. trustees, a of private trustees, are typically relatives or close associates of the trust's creator () who assume roles due to relational ties, though this arrangement demands strict adherence to to avoid perceptions of favoritism. Appointment of private and family trustees occurs through provisions in the trust instrument, where the settlor designates the initial trustee, or via mechanisms like protector appointments or beneficiary consensus as outlined in the deed. No universal statutory qualifications mandate professional credentials for private trustees in most common law jurisdictions, but competence in fiduciary matters is implicitly required, with courts able to remove trustees for incapacity or breach. In practice, settlors favor family trustees for their intimate knowledge of generational needs, such as funding education or business ventures, which can enable more nuanced decision-making than rigid institutional protocols. Core responsibilities mirror general fiduciary duties but adapt to private contexts: private trustees must prudently invest assets, distribute income or principal per trust terms, maintain accurate records, and file required tax returns, often without the administrative infrastructure of corporate counterparts. Family trustees face amplified challenges in upholding the duty of impartiality, as emotional bonds can lead to unequal treatment among beneficiaries, prompting litigation risks; for instance, disputes arise when trustees prioritize one sibling's distributions over others. To mitigate this, many private trusts incorporate co-trustees—one family member for relational insight and an independent professional for oversight—or limit family trustees to advisory roles. Advantages of private and family trustees include cost efficiency, as they may forgo institutional fees—typically structured as a percentage of trust assets, often tiered with rates starting at 0.8%-2% per year and decreasing as the asset scale increases to cover costs and reasonable profit—and offer flexibility in unconventional s like family businesses, leveraging personal expertise unavailable to detached institutions. However, drawbacks persist: individual trustees lack , facing removal or death without seamless transition, and may underperform in complex or strategies due to limited resources. Family dynamics exacerbate these issues, with conflicts over asset preservation versus distribution eroding trust integrity; studies of trust litigation indicate family-appointed trustees correlate with higher dispute rates stemming from perceived . In response to these vulnerabilities, some high-net-worth families establish private trust companies (PTCs) as hybrid entities, where family members govern but delegate operations to professionals, ensuring continuity while retaining control—though PTCs require significant assets (often exceeding $100 million) and regulatory compliance. Overall, while private and family trustees enable personalized stewardship aligned with settlor intent, their efficacy hinges on robust trust drafting to enforce accountability and preempt relational pitfalls.

Corporate and Institutional Trustees

Corporate trustees, also known as institutional trustees, are legal entities such as banks, trust companies, or specialized firms chartered to act as fiduciaries in administering trusts. These entities differ from individual trustees by operating as incorporated bodies with dedicated departments for trust management, providing unaffected by personal mortality or incapacity. Their primary responsibilities include executing the trust's terms through prudent , decisions, record-keeping, and distribution to beneficiaries, all while upholding core duties of loyalty, care, and impartiality. Corporate trustees often handle complex portfolios involving securities, , or international assets, leveraging specialized teams for compliance with tax laws and . In institutional contexts, such as managing funds or endowments under frameworks like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the United States, they must monitor for breaches like securities litigation risks while prioritizing plan beneficiaries' interests. Key advantages include professional expertise from trained staff, enhanced objectivity free from family conflicts, and robust for diversification and reporting, which reduce errors in long-term administration. Regulatory supervision by bodies such as state banking commissions or the Office of the of the Currency ensures accountability through mandatory audits, , and detailed , mitigating personal liability risks that individuals face. However, corporate trustees typically impose higher fees—often 0.5% to 1.5% of assets annually—compared to trustees, and may lack intimate knowledge of intentions or dynamics, potentially leading to more rigid interpretations of trust terms. Despite these costs, their institutional scale supports for high-value trusts exceeding $1 million, where continuity and compliance outweigh personalized service. Co-trustee arrangements, pairing a corporate entity with an advisor, are common to balance expertise with relational insight.

Bankruptcy Trustees

In the United States, bankruptcy trustees are appointed under Title 11 of the United States Code to administer debtor estates, primarily to ensure orderly liquidation or reorganization while maximizing creditor recovery and preventing abuse. The U.S. Trustee Program, a component of the Department of Justice established by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 and expanded under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, oversees trustee appointments and supervision to maintain impartiality and detect fraud. Trustees serve as officers of the court, deriving authority from the Bankruptcy Code rather than traditional common law fiduciary roles, with duties centered on estate administration rather than perpetual asset management. In Chapter 7 cases, the trustee's core responsibilities include collecting and liquidating non-exempt estate property, investigating the debtor's financial affairs for potential or concealment, and distributing proceeds to creditors according to statutory priorities. Appointed by the U.S. Trustee from a panel of private practitioners upon case filing, the trustee conducts the Section 341 meeting of creditors to examine the under oath and may object to discharge if assets were hidden or misrepresented. For instance, as of 2023, Chapter 7 trustees administered over 250,000 cases, recovering approximately $1.2 billion in assets for distribution. Unlike private trustees, bankruptcy trustees prioritize expeditious closure, often selling assets via auction or private sale to realize . Chapter 13 trustees, serving wage-earner reorganization , focus on collecting payments under confirmed , disbursing to creditors, and monitoring plan compliance over three to five years. Appointed similarly from U.S. Trustee panels, they review plan feasibility, object to improper claims, and ensure the debtor's best efforts in disposable income contributions, as mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 1325. In fiscal year 2022, Chapter 13 trustees distributed over $10 billion to creditors across roughly 300,000 cases, underscoring their role in facilitating structured repayment over outright . In Chapter 11 reorganizations, the debtor typically acts as "debtor in possession" with trustee-like duties unless the court appoints a separate trustee for cause, such as fraud or incompetence, upon motion by parties in interest. When appointed, the trustee assumes control to propose and implement a reorganization plan, operate the business if viable, and pursue avoidance actions like preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547. The U.S. Trustee monitors all Chapter 11 cases, reviewing disclosures and fees to curb abuses, with over 20,000 filings annually as of 2023 emphasizing the scale of oversight. Trustees in these contexts must balance business continuity with creditor protections, often employing professionals subject to court approval to avoid conflicts. Bankruptcy trustees owe fiduciary duties akin to those in trust law, including loyalty to the estate and prudence in actions, but accountability mechanisms differ, with compensation tied to statutory percentages of distributions—up to 25% on the first $5,000 recovered in Chapter 7, scaling down thereafter. Violations, such as self-dealing or negligence, can lead to removal, surcharge, or denial of fees by the court, reinforced by U.S. Trustee audits. This framework promotes efficiency but has faced criticism for panel trustee incentives favoring quick closures over thorough recoveries in low-asset cases.

Public, Charitable, and Governmental Trustees

Public trustees are government officials or offices empowered to act as fiduciaries for vulnerable beneficiaries or unclaimed assets when private trustees are unavailable, ensuring impartial administration under statutory authority. In the United Kingdom, the Public Trustee, created by the Public Trustee Act 1906, operates as a corporation sole under the Lord Chancellor's oversight, with duties encompassing the execution of wills, management of settlements, administration of small estates, and service as either custodian or ordinary trustee. This role extends to handling unadministered intestate estates involving vulnerable beneficiaries and providing a neutral option for trust creation during lifetimes. In Canada, provincial equivalents like Ontario's Public Guardian and Trustee, governed by the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, fulfill similar functions, including estate guardianship for minors, incapacitated adults, and missing persons, while discharging fiduciary obligations such as asset protection and annual accountings to safeguard public interests. Charitable trustees manage endowments or operations dedicated to public benefit purposes, subject to heightened scrutiny due to their non-profit orientation and regulatory oversight. Under , trustees must prioritize advancing the charity's objects through prudent decision-making, risk management, and compliance with the Charities Act 2011, including timely reporting to the Charity Commission and avoidance of unauthorized personal benefits. , trustees of charitable trusts adhere to uniform standards under state laws and Section 501(c)(3), requiring annual IRS filings, preservation of tax-exempt status, and exercise of due care in investments to prevent erosion of principal or mission drift. These duties emphasize loyalty to beneficiaries—often indefinite classes—and impartiality, with trustees liable for breaches like or imprudent that jeopardizes charitable aims. Governmental trustees oversee public funds or assets held in trust by state entities, such as systems or resources, imposing collective to taxpayers and participants rather than private settlors. Boards of public funds, for example, owe duties of prudence and loyalty under trusts principles, mandating investments solely for benefit payments without subordinating financial returns to extraneous political or social goals. In the U.S., state statutes and constitutional provisions reinforce these obligations, requiring trustees to exercise informed judgment, diversify assets, and maintain transparency through actuarial reviews and audits, as seen in systems like California's Public Employees' Retirement System, which managed $499.2 billion in assets as of June 30, 2024. Breaches, such as excessive risk-taking or conflicts, trigger personal liability, underscoring the trustees' role in preserving fiscal sustainability amid demographic pressures like aging workforces.

Jurisdictional Variations

United Kingdom Frameworks

In , the legal framework governing trustees derives from equitable principles originating in the , emphasizing obligations to beneficiaries, supplemented by statutory provisions that delineate powers, duties, and liabilities. Trusts must satisfy —intention, subject matter, and objects—as established in precedents like Knight v Knight (1840), with trustees holding legal title to assets while administering them for beneficiaries' benefit. The framework applies to express, resulting, and constructive trusts, excluding statutory trusts in specific contexts like . The Trustee Act 1925 serves as the foundational statute, enacted on 9 April 1925 to consolidate earlier enactments and regulate trustee administration in . It empowers trustees with rights to appoint new trustees (section 36), vest property in successors (section 41), and sell or exchange trust assets (section 39), while imposing restrictions on investments limited to a narrow range of securities unless authorized otherwise. Sections 31 and 32 provide for maintenance of minor beneficiaries and advancement of capital up to half the presumptive share, respectively, subject to court approval if exceeding statutory limits. The Act also grants courts equitable jurisdiction under section 61 to relieve trustees from personal liability for breaches if they acted honestly and reasonably. The Trustee Act 2000, effective from 1 February 2001, modernized these provisions by introducing a uniform duty of care under section 1, requiring trustees to exercise reasonable care and skill as if managing their own affairs, applicable to investments, delegation, and asset acquisition. It expanded investment powers via sections 3–5 to align with a prudent person standard, permitting diversified portfolios including land acquisition (section 8) without prior narrow statutory constraints, while mandating consideration of standard investment criteria like risk and diversification. Sections 11–15 authorize delegation of asset management to nominees, agents, or custodians, with trustees liable for due diligence in selection and oversight, though not for agents' defaults if reasonable steps were taken. Scottish trust law diverges, rooted in civilian influences and governed by the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, which emphasizes judicial nomination of trustees and broader perpetuity periods, with trustees enjoying statutory powers of assumption and exoneration not uniformly mirrored in . Northern Ireland follows similar principles to under the Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, incorporating 1925 and 2000 Act equivalents. The Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 implements the Convention, enabling UK courts to recognize foreign trusts, though enforcement remains subject to exceptions. For charitable trustees, the Charities Act 2011 imposes additional oversight by the Charity Commission, requiring compliance with public benefit tests, but general duties persist across jurisdictions.

United States Frameworks

In the , the legal frameworks governing trustees derive primarily from state , supplemented by statutory codifications and influential restatements, with federal overlays for specific contexts such as employee benefit plans and proceedings. Private trusts, including revocable living trusts and irrevocable family trusts, are administered under state-specific statutes that emphasize duties of loyalty, prudence, and impartiality, often drawing from English principles adapted to American . The American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Trusts (completed in 2019 across four volumes) serves as a non-binding but highly persuasive guide, articulating core trustee obligations such as the duty to administer the trust solely in the beneficiaries' interests, exercise reasonable care and skill in investments under the Prudent Investor Rule (Section 90), and avoid . This restatement updates earlier versions to reflect , requiring trustees to consider the entire trust portfolio's risk and return objectives rather than evaluating individual assets in isolation. The (UTC), promulgated by the in 2000, provides a comprehensive statutory model adopted in whole or in significant part by 36 states and the District of Columbia as of 2022, harmonizing rules on trust creation, modification, termination, and trustee powers. UTC Article 8 codifies the Prudent Investor Rule (UTC § 9), mandating diversification unless otherwise specified, while Article 7 outlines representative capacities and powers, and Article 10 addresses liability limitations through exculpatory clauses scrutinized for unconscionability. States without full UTC adoption, such as and New York, rely on bespoke statutes like California's Code §§ 16000–16081, which impose similar duties but may diverge on issues like perpetual trusts or directed trusts. Trustee removal and accounting requirements under UTC § 706 and § 813 enable beneficiaries or courts to enforce compliance, with courts interpreting trust instruments to ascertain intent as paramount. Federal frameworks apply to trustees in regulated sectors. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), trustees of qualified and welfare benefit plans must discharge duties "solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries" with , exclusive purpose, diversification, and adherence to plan documents (29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)). ERISA fiduciaries, including named trustees, face for breaches, with the Department of Labor enforcing through civil penalties and participant lawsuits, emphasizing process over outcomes in assessments. In , the U.S. Trustee Program, administered by the Department of Justice since the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, appoints and oversees panel trustees under 28 U.S.C. §§ 586–587 to liquidate assets in Chapter 7 cases or supervise debtor-in-possession in Chapter 11, ensuring impartial administration and prevention. These trustees collect fees from estates (capped at 25% of distributions under 11 U.S.C. § 326) and report to the U.S. Trustee, who monitors for abuse across over 400,000 annual filings. Charitable trustees, meanwhile, operate under state oversight by attorneys general, with federal tax implications via § 4947 imposing rules on non-exempt trusts. Across frameworks, courts prioritize empirical evidence of trustee conduct over subjective intent, with remedies including surcharge, removal, and tailored to demonstrable harm.

International and Specialized Contexts

In international contexts, trustees often manage cross-border trusts established for , , and wealth preservation, particularly in jurisdictions that recognize the trust concept despite civil law traditions lacking native equivalents. The 1985 Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on Their Recognition facilitates this by allowing the settlor to select the governing , which applies to the trust's validity, , effects, and administration, including trustee duties such as and distribution. Ratified by 16 states as of 2023, including , , , and , the convention promotes recognition of foreign trusts, enabling trustees to enforce obligations across borders without automatic subjection to local mandatory rules on succession or . However, its limited adoption—absent in major economies like the and the —highlights challenges in uniform enforcement, with trustees relying on choice-of-law clauses to mitigate conflicts in jurisdictions like or the , where international trusts blend principles with local safeguards. Offshore trusts represent a specialized application, where trustees in low-tax, stable jurisdictions such as the , , or hold legal title to assets transferred by s from high-risk environments, shielding them from foreign creditors, judgments, or claims. These structures, governed by statutes like the Cook Islands International Trusts Act of 1984, impose stringent duties on trustees, including prudent and independence from settlor influence to withstand "self-settled" trust challenges, though U.S. courts may disregard them if deemed fraudulent transfers under uniform voidable transactions laws. Trustees must navigate reporting requirements under frameworks like the U.S. (FATCA) and (CRS), ensuring transparency while preserving privacy benefits. Empirical data from jurisdictions like indicate that such trusts manage billions in assets annually, with trustees often professional entities vetted for solvency and expertise to minimize risks of maladministration. A distinct specialized context arose under the International Trusteeship System, established by Chapter XII of the UN Charter in 1945 to oversee 11 Trust Territories—former mandates and colonies—toward self-governance or independence. Administering authorities, such as the for or the for Tanganyika, acted as trustees with fiduciary-like obligations to promote economic advancement, , and political development, subject to Trusteeship Council oversight comprising UN Security Council permanent members. By 1994, all territories achieved , suspending the council's operations; trustees reported annually on progress, with petitions from inhabitants ensuring accountability, though critiques noted uneven enforcement, as in slower of Pacific islands. This system exemplified state-level trusteeship distinct from private fiduciary roles, influencing modern international administration in entities like World Bank trust funds, where the Bank serves as financial trustee for donor-contributed mechanisms such as the , managing disbursements per contributor agreements without personal liability akin to private trustees.

Key Statutes and Common Law Milestones

The origins of trustee obligations trace to medieval English equity jurisprudence, where Chancery courts enforced "uses" as precursors to modern trusts, imposing duties on feoffees to hold land for use beneficiaries despite legal title vesting in the trustee-like figure. The Statute of Uses 1535, enacted under , aimed to convert equitable uses into legal estates but inadvertently preserved trusts by courts distinguishing executory uses from bare trusts, thereby entrenching the separation of legal and central to trustee accountability. The Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 introduced enforcement mechanisms for charitable trustees, empowering courts to scrutinize mismanagement of funds designated for public benefit, such as relief of the poor, and establishing precedents for remedies against trustee neglect. A pivotal milestone occurred in Keech v. Sandford (1726), where the ruled that a trustee renewing a held on trust for an infant must hold the renewed term for the trust, prohibiting personal profit from opportunities even absent harm, thereby crystallizing the no-conflict and no-profit rules inherent to trustee duties. The Trustee Act 1925 consolidated fragmented prior enactments, codifying trustee powers including investment authority under a statutory list, protections against liability for reasonable delegations to agents, and simplified procedures for appointing or retiring trustees, while affirming core equitable duties like and . In the United States, trustee law evolved from English imports, with early state statutes like New York's Revised Statutes of 1828 facilitating trusts to shield beneficiaries from creditors, diverging from stricter English rules and emphasizing policy-driven protections over doctrinal rigidity. Later, the of 2000 standardized non-interventionist principles across jurisdictions, reinforcing trustee discretion while mandating loyalty, , and prudent administration without altering foundational constraints.

Modern Developments and International Harmonization

The Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on Their Recognition represents the principal international effort to harmonize rules governing the for trusts and their mandatory recognition across jurisdictions. Adopted under the auspices of the Conference on Private International Law, it entered into force on 1 January 1992 and defines a trust as the relationship where a trustee holds assets for beneficiaries or purposes, separate from the trustee's own property. The convention permits parties to select the governing law explicitly or implicitly, extends that law's scope to validity, construction, effects, administration, and variation, and requires recognition of trusts even in non-common-law states, provided foreign is not violated. As of 2025, the convention has 14 contracting parties, including , , , , , , , , the Netherlands, , , , and the United Kingdom, reflecting limited but targeted adoption primarily in mixed or common-law influenced systems. Its ratification remains sparse in civil-law dominant regions due to conceptual incompatibilities with traditions lacking segregated , yet it has facilitated cross-border trust enforcement in signatory courts and influenced bilateral agreements. For instance, it mandates recognition of trusts created under foreign law, protecting trustee title to assets against non-recognition claims, though reservations allow exclusions for pre-convention trusts in some states. Modern developments emphasize enhanced transparency and anti-money laundering compliance as de facto harmonization drivers, propelled by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. FATF Recommendation 25, updated through guidance in March 2024, requires jurisdictions to ensure trustees maintain and disclose accurate, up-to-date beneficial ownership information for express trusts, including settlors, trustees, protectors, beneficiaries, and controllers. This risk-based approach mandates trustees to verify identities, retain records for at least five years, and share data with competent authorities upon request, aligning practices across over 200 FATF members and observers to mitigate illicit finance risks without uniform substantive trust law. Jurisdictional reforms increasingly incorporate these standards while innovating trustee powers for international mobility. In , the Trustee Amendment Act 2025, effective October 2025, codifies trustees' discretion in responsible investing and , enhancing compatibility with global norms and positioning offshore centers as reform leaders. Similar updates in jurisdictions like the and have introduced trust protectors and directed trustee models, allowing involvement without invalidating the trust, amid pressures from (CRS) implementation since 2017, which mandates trustee reporting of financial accounts to tax authorities. These evolutions address recognition challenges in transnational contexts, such as digital assets and sovereign , though full harmonization remains elusive due to divergent concepts.

Controversies, Abuses, and Accountability

Common Forms of Trustee Misconduct

Trustee misconduct typically involves breaches of duties, which require trustees to act with , , , and in accordance with the trust's terms. These duties stem from principles and statutes like the in the United States, where violations can lead to removal, surcharge, or . Misconduct often arises from self-interest overriding beneficiary welfare, with empirical data from litigation showing and asset mismanagement as frequent claims in trust disputes. Self-dealing and conflicts of interest occur when trustees engage in transactions benefiting themselves or related parties, such as selling trust assets to themselves at below-market value or borrowing trust funds without authorization. This violates the duty of , as trustees must avoid personal gain from trust property; for instance, courts have held that even indirect benefits, like favoring in investments, constitute breaches unless explicitly permitted by the trust instrument. Such actions are prevalent in trusts, where familial ties exacerbate conflicts, leading to litigation where beneficiaries seek of profits. Misappropriation or of assets involves direct or unauthorized use of trust funds for personal expenses, such as withdrawing cash for non-trust purposes or falsifying records to cover diversions. In one documented pattern, trustees have been found liable for converting assets like or securities, with remedies including repayment plus interest; criminal charges may apply if intent is proven, as in cases under state statutes. This form is particularly egregious, often detected through audits revealing discrepancies in accountings. Mismanagement or negligent administration encompasses imprudent investments, failure to maintain trust property, or inadequate diversification, breaching the duty of prudence akin to a "prudent investor" standard. For example, neglecting property upkeep leading to depreciation or making high-risk bets without diversification has resulted in surcharges equal to losses, as quantified in court-ordered valuations. Negligence differs from intentional malfeasance but equally erodes trust value, with data from estate litigation indicating it accounts for a significant portion of removal petitions. Failure to distribute or communicate includes withholding mandatory distributions or neglecting to provide beneficiaries with required accountings and information, violating duties of impartiality and administration. Trustees must adhere to distribution triggers like age milestones or needs-based criteria; delays or denials without justification, such as using discretion to favor one beneficiary, have led to court interventions enforcing payouts plus damages for lost use of funds. Beneficiaries often uncover this through persistent inquiries, prompting petitions for information under statutes like California's Probate Code section 16060. Commingling of assets arises when trustees mix trust funds with personal or other accounts, obscuring tracking and risking loss in insolvency; this breaches segregation requirements and facilitates undetected misuse. Legal standards mandate separate ledgers, and violations have resulted in strict liability for losses attributable to commingling, as courts presume misappropriation in blended funds absent proof otherwise. This practice is common in smaller trusts where trustees handle administration informally, heightening vulnerability. Other violations, such as inadequate record-keeping or hostility toward , compound these issues by hindering oversight, though they often support broader breach claims rather than standalone . Overall, these forms underscore the need for vigilant beneficiary monitoring, as unchecked can deplete trusts by percentages exceeding 20-30% in protracted disputes, per litigation outcome analyses.

Notable Historical and Recent Cases

In Keech v. Sandford (1726), an English Chancery court ruled that a trustee who renewed a leasehold interest in a market stall for himself, after the landlord refused renewal to the trust on behalf of an infant , held the renewed lease on constructive trust for the , thereby establishing the foundational equitable principle prohibiting trustees from profiting from their position or engaging in , regardless of intent or absence of harm to the trust. This case underscored the strict fiduciary duty of loyalty, preventing even opportunities arising from trust administration from being exploited personally by the trustee. Another historical precedent arose in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), where the U.S. held that a trustee's publication of notice in a newspaper to unknown beneficiaries of common trust fund terminations violated under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it failed to provide reasonable notice tailored to known parties, emphasizing trustees' obligations to ensure beneficiaries can protect their interests before trust assets are distributed or altered. In recent U.S. litigation, v. Fiduciary Trust International of (2017) involved beneficiaries suing co-trustees of a family trust for alleged breaches of duties, including mismanagement and , seeking damages exceeding $100 million; the Chancery Court addressed claims of improper investments and distributions, highlighting ongoing scrutiny of trustee discretion in high-value family trusts. A 2021 scandal in the centered on the collapse of the McClure & Co., where acting as trustee for client in trusts left hundreds of homeowners unable to sell assets or access titles due to administrative failures and unresolved obligations, resulting in thousands of pounds in additional legal costs for affected parties and prompting regulatory investigations into trustee accountability in professional firms. In Rukhadze v. Recovery Partners GP Ltd. (2025), the affirmed the strict "no-profit" rule for , including trustees and similar roles like liquidators, requiring full of profits derived from breaches of without deductions for or effort, in a case stemming from unauthorized gains linked to positions, reinforcing that equitable remedies prioritize deterrence over compensation.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedies

Beneficiaries enforce trustee duties primarily through equitable actions in , seeking remedies for breaches such as mismanagement, , or failure to act prudently. impose on trustees for breaches, requiring restoration of trust property or compensation from the trustee's personal assets, even for innocent errors, unless defenses like apply. These mechanisms deter by prioritizing trust over trustee intent. Personal remedies target the trustee individually and include equitable compensation for losses caused by the breach, calculated to place the trust in the position it would have occupied absent the violation. Trustees must also account for profits gained through breach, disgorging unauthorized benefits via an "account of profits" to prevent unjust enrichment. In cases of willful misconduct, courts may impose punitive elements within disgorgement, though pure punitive damages remain exceptional in trust law. Proprietary remedies allow beneficiaries to trace and recover misapplied trust assets, following them into substituted forms or third-party hands if not bona fide purchasers. This includes setting aside transactions, where trustees profit from trust property, rendering such deals voidable regardless of loss to the trust. For ongoing or severe misconduct, courts may remove the trustee under statutory or powers, appointing successors to safeguard assets, often upon showing incapacity, hostility, or repeated breaches. Ancillary orders include injunctions halting further breaches or appointing receivers to manage trust temporarily. In the United States, state codes, such as California's Code §15642, explicitly authorize removal for breaches endangering trust administration. Limitations apply: remedies are discretionary and may be barred by delay (laches), beneficiary acquiescence, or exculpatory clauses in the trust instrument, though the latter cannot shield intentional breaches. trustees face additional regulatory scrutiny, such as from financial authorities, amplifying civil enforcement.

References

  1. https://thelawdictionary.org/trustee/
  2. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1969
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-some-examples-fiduciary-duty.asp
  4. https://www.saul.com/insights/blog/tips-trustees-avoiding-breach-fiduciary-duty-claims
  5. https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2023/fiduciary-duties-owed-by-trustees-an-introduction/
  6. https://independenttrust.com/types-of-trustees/
  7. https://www.usbank.com/wealth-management/financial-perspectives/trust-and-estate-planning/how-to-choose-a-trustee-of-a-trust.html
  8. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-does-a-trustee-do
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trustee
  10. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trustee.asp
  11. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/real_property_trust_estate/resources/estate-planning/guidelines-individual-executors-trustees/
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=26-USC-1048439560-1321873483&term_occur=92&term_src=
  13. https://www.cnb.com/personal-banking/insights/trustee-guardian-executor-meanings.html
  14. https://www.etymonline.com/word/trustee
  15. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/trustee_n
  16. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4163&context=ndlr
  17. http://www.londontrust.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Journal_of_ITCP_The_Trust_Continual_Evolution_of_a_Centuries-old_Idea.pdf
  18. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2616&context=faculty_scholarship
  19. https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume70/issue4/the-origins-of-the-modern-english-trust-revisited
  20. https://pierce-legal.com/2023/07/26/history-of-trusts/
  21. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/1/4/0/8/1408268213.pdf
  22. https://www.englishlawpllc.com/blog-3-1/a-brief-history-of-trusts-from-feudal-england-to-modern-planning
  23. https://lexcorp.com/en/trust/history/
  24. https://issuu.com/sanantoniobar/docs/sal-sepoct-mmc-digital/s/11055744
  25. https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-common-law-corporation-the-power-of-the-trust-in-anglo-american-business-history/
  26. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Contractarian_Basis_Law_of_Trusts.pdf
  27. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Questioning_the_Trust.pdf
  28. https://lewislawoftrusts.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/duty-of-loyalty/
  29. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=faculty-articles
  30. https://lawprof.co/trust/constructive-trust-cases/keech-v-sandford-1726-sel-cas-king-61/
  31. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3699&context=clevstlrev
  32. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/uniform_prudent_investor_act
  33. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prudent-investor-rule.asp
  34. https://www.fidelity.com/insights/investing-ideas/glossary-prudent-investor-rule
  35. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/fiduciary-duties-in-investment-matters.pdf
  36. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5809.02
  37. https://www.prudentinvestors.com/blog/the-uniform-prudent-investor-act-upia-guide/
  38. https://dhtrustlaw.com/blog/prudent-investor-rule-for-trustees/
  39. https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/a/web/88rWX6D6bphUvJwLWqZupa/Xbww5/Fiduciary%252520Investment%252520Guidelines%252520-%252520Final.pdf
  40. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/29/notes/division/5/1
  41. https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2023/duties-of-care-owed-by-trustees-a-brief-guide/
  42. https://www.truelinkfinancial.com/blog/important-fiduciary-duties-to-know-before-becoming-a-trustee
  43. https://www.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/AM17PrudentInvestorRuleandMarketRisk.pdf
  44. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/AUG16-financial-advisers-cant-overlook-prudent-investor-rule
  45. https://lewislawoftrusts.lawbooks.cali.org/chapter/duty-of-impartiality/
  46. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/trustees-duty-deal-impartially-beneficiaries-all-kinds
  47. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title64.2/part/section64.2-765/
  48. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0736/Sections/0736.0803.html
  49. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2019/4/helping-trustees-avoid-liability-the-duty-of-impartiality
  50. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duties_of_trustees
  51. https://keystone-law.com/trustee-responsibilities-and-roles
  52. https://sandovallegacygroup.com/trust-administration-key-duties-and-best-practices/
  53. https://www.cote-law.com/understanding-trustee-duties-what-you-need-to-know-when-administering-a-trust/
  54. https://www.dbllawyers.com/trust-administration/
  55. https://www.bpbcpa.com/understanding-trustees-fiduciary-accounting-responsibilities/
  56. https://wcnllp.com/a-trustees-duty-to-account/
  57. https://www.finseca.org/the-trustees-duty-to-inform-and-report-what-to-say-and-when/
  58. https://www.tx.cpa/news-publications/todays-cpa-magazine/issues/article/january-february-2023/2023/01/11/tell-me-more-tell-me-more
  59. https://trustlawpartners.com/the-trustees-duty-of-accounting/
  60. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/p/private-trustee
  61. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/trustees-who-are-family-members-pros-and-cons
  62. https://www.ogier.com/news-and-insights/guides-and-factsheets/at-a-glance-guide-to-the-appointment-of-trustees/
  63. https://woodruffsawyer.com/insights/selecting-trustee-individual-corporate-independent
  64. https://www.paestateplanners.com/library/choosing-a-trustee-individual-trustee-vs-bank-or-corporate-trustee.cfm
  65. https://thegildgroup.com/corporate-trustee-vs-individual-trustee/
  66. https://nationaladvisors.com/understanding-the-value-of-trustee-fees/
  67. https://www.cunninghamlegal.com/trustee-risks/
  68. https://www.naepc.org/events/newsletter/11/2024
  69. https://www.deanmead.com/trustees-beware-understanding-your-trustee-duties-and-how-to-stay-out-of-trouble/
  70. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporate_trustee
  71. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trustcompany.asp
  72. https://cumberlandtrust.com/key-differences-between-an-individual-trustee-and-a-corporate-trustee/
  73. https://www.ocelderlaw.com/corporate-trustee
  74. https://www.financestrategists.com/estate-planning-lawyer/trustee/corporate-trustees/
  75. https://bridgefordtrust.com/individual-corporate-trustee/
  76. https://www.proskauer.com/uploads/managing-the-risks-of-fiduciary-litigation-guidelines-for-institutional-trustees
  77. https://www.glenmede.com/news-insights/private-wealth-the-value-of-a-corporate-trustee/
  78. https://progenylawfirm.com/corporate-trustee-managing-complex-estates/
  79. https://bridgestrust.com/the-essential-role-of-a-corporate-trustee-in-estate-planning/
  80. https://boulaygroup.com/choosing-a-trustee-individual-or-corporate/
  81. https://www.carolinafep.com/library/trustee-selection-individual-vs-bank-or-corporate-trustee.cfm
  82. https://www.estateplanning.com/understanding-corporate-trustees
  83. https://www.orsbonandfenninger.com/blog/the-difference-between-an-individual-and-corporate-trustee/
  84. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/704
  85. https://www.justice.gov/ust/about-program
  86. https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-7-bankruptcy-basics
  87. https://www.justice.gov/ust/private-trustee-information
  88. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/the-role-and-duties-of-the-chapter-13-bankruptcy-trustee
  89. https://www.justice.gov/ust/bankruptcy-fact-sheets/us-trustees-role-chapter-11-bankruptcy-cases
  90. https://www.justice.gov/ust/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-trustees
  91. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/official-solicitor-and-public-trustee/about
  92. https://pbplawyers.com/public-guardian-and-trustee-explained/
  93. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-what-you-need-to-do
  94. https://heartlandestatelaw.com/blog/trustee-duties-for-charitable-trusts-legal-obligations-and-potential-pitfalls/
  95. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/03/01/fiduciary-duties-of-public-pension-systems-and-registered-investment-advisors/
  96. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/governance-of-public-employee-postretirement-benefits
  97. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-003-4403?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  98. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/19/contents
  99. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/29/contents
  100. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/precedents/being-a-trustee-client-guide
  101. https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=193ff839-7955-4846-8f3c-ce74ac23938d
  102. https://www.ali.org/news/articles/american-law-institute-completes-restatement-third-trusts
  103. https://www.ali.org/publications/restatement-law-third/trusts
  104. https://actecfoundation.org/podcasts/uniform-trust-code-utc/
  105. https://www.farrlawfirm.com/resources/list-of-states-that-have-adopted-the-uniform-trust-code
  106. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1167&context=acteclj
  107. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1104
  108. https://www.bairdholm.com/blog/fiduciary-duties-under-erisa/
  109. https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/trustees-and-administrators
  110. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=59
  111. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=59
  112. https://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/11/11-02/law-trusts-recognition.html
  113. https://blakeharrislaw.com/blog/offshore-trust
  114. https://www.alperlaw.com/offshore/offshore-trust/
  115. https://www.offshore-protection.com/offshore-trusts/us-expats-looking-for-asset-protection
  116. https://www.agplaw.com/cyprus-international-trusts-the-role-of-trustees-responsibilities-powers-legal-safeguards/
  117. https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/history/international-trusteeship-system-and-trust-territories
  118. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/trusteeship-council
  119. https://www.thegef.org/who-we-are/funding
  120. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/487/
  121. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/legislation/uk-parliament-acts/trustee-act-1925-c19
  122. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/19
  123. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4566339
  124. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4493/Why_Did_Trust_Law_Become_Statute_Law_in_the_United_States.pdf
  125. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Transparency-Legal-Arrangements.html
  126. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Fatf-recommendations.html
  127. https://www.step.org/press-office/new-trust-laws-bermuda-pave-way-global-reform
  128. https://www.ogier.com/news-and-insights/insights/shaping-the-future-2024-trust-law-developments-across-ogiers-offshore-jurisdictions/
  129. https://www.justia.com/probate/probate-litigation/litigation-against-a-trustee/
  130. https://rmolawyers.com/blog/trustee-malfeasance-guide/
  131. https://www.grossmanlaw.net/breaching-their-fiduciary-duties/
  132. https://www.brmmlaw.com/blog/2023/september/examples-of-breach-of-fiduciary-duty/
  133. https://legacycarelaw.com/blog/estate-planning-2/10-ways-a-trustee-can-breach-the-fiduciary-duty/
  134. https://www.grossmanlaw.net/what-is-trustee-misconduct/
  135. https://www.tzbrokerlaw.com/trust-litigation/trustee-misconduct/
  136. https://loewlawgroup.com/2025/03/11/examples-of-breaches-of-fiduciary-duty-in-trusts-and-estates/
  137. https://www.sterlingkerrlaw.com/blog/2024/05/3-examples-of-trustee-abuse-of-power/
  138. https://romanosumner.com/faq/what-kinds-of-trustee-misconduct-constitute-grounds-for-removal/
  139. https://www.webblawgroup.com/blog/2025/august/what-counts-as-trustee-misconduct-and-what-you-c/
  140. https://www.cataneselaw.com/estate/signs-that-a-trustee-has-breached-fiduciary-duty/
  141. https://www.sterlingcounsel.com/blog/2024/08/3-elements-of-trustee-misconduct-to-watch-out-for/
  142. https://keystone-law.com/misappropriation-of-trust-funds-by-the-trustee
  143. https://www.hkplawfirm.com/blog/2025/01/common-ways-trustees-misuse-their-authority-for-personal-gain/
  144. https://www.rosslawinc.com/what-are-the-damages-for-a-trustees-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-in-california/
  145. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/306/
  146. https://www.morrisnichols.com/insights-kathryn-mennen-et-al-v-fiduciary-trust-international-as-individual-trustee-v-george-jeff-mennen
  147. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0werz60w1o
  148. https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2023-0062
  149. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/trust-disputes-remedies-for-breach-of-trust
  150. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103922
  151. https://www8.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2008/3.pdf
  152. https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/english-law-account-profits-remedy-clarified
  153. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/assets/Uploads/A4_Kelly.pdf
  154. https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/services/department/dispute-resolution/trust-and-estate-disputes/trustees/fiduciary-duty-claims
  155. https://keystone-law.com/guide-for-removing-a-trustee-from-a-trust
  156. https://connell.legal/2025/01/10/breach-of-trust-what-it-is-and-remedies/
  157. https://www.octrial.com/defending-a-trustee-against-removal-and-surcharge-action-strategies-and-considerations/
  158. https://www.kmgslaw.com/knox-law-institute/publications/trustees-fiduciary-duties-removal-and-mechanisms-to-prevent-calamity
  159. https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/civil-fraud/articles/fiduciary-duties-an-in-depth-guide/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.