Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-1984-226 Orphan's IN RE: GEORGE W. STROCK FAMILY TRUST IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION No. 21-84-226 ORPHANS' COURT IN RE: PETITION TO REMOVE CO-TRUSTEE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., May 13, 2005:-- George W. Strock died on March 24, 1994. He created through a will the Strock Family Trust. The corpus is a one-half interest in a 106 acre farm at 815 William Grove Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County. The co-trustees are two of decedent's five children, Barry L. Strock and George Nevin Strock. Decedent's wife, Ruth A. Strock, is the income beneficiary. She was the owner of the other one-half interest in the farm where she continues to live. Upon her death the Trust will be divided one share for each of the living children or any deceased child who leaves issue.1 The Trust was never administered. All income from the rental of an apartment and some acreage on the property, was paid directly to Ruth Strock. She has paid all taxes, insurance and maintenance on the property. The Trust has never filed an accounting. In 1998, Barry Strock moved into the apartment on the property and has paid his mother rent since that time. It was initially $400 per month and is now $460 per month. He put an addition onto the apartment without obtaining a building permit. He has assisted his mother in maintaining the rest of the property. Strock has a full-time job. In 1999, Barry Strock started a horse boarding business on the farm which he 1 There are three daughters and the two sons. No. 21-84-226 ORPHANS' COURT continues to operate. He has an insurance policy but it appears, inexplicably, to except horse boarding from coverage. On December 19, 2000, Ruth Strock transferred her one-half interest in the farm to Barry Strock. In a separate agreement, Strock granted his mother a life estate in the "homestead residence" with use of a garagelshed and the immediate area around the residence. She agreed to be responsible for utilities, real estate taxes, liability insurance, minor repairs and one-half of major repairs related to her use of the residence. In June, 2002, George Strock first learned that his mother had transferred her one-half interest in the farm to his brother, and that his brother was operating a horse boarding business on the farm. Believing that the Trust now needed to be administered, George Strock has sought the cooperation of Barry Strock in that endeavor. Barry Strock has not cooperated. On January 24, 2003, George Strock filed a petition seeking the removal of Barry Strock as a co-trustee of the Strock Family Trust. On March 11, 2005, Barry Strock filed a petition against the Strock Family Trust, George Strock as co-trustee, George Strock individually, and his three sisters, seeking partition of the farm. That petition is pending. Hearings have been conducted on the petition to remove Barry Strock as a co-trustee of the Strock Family Trust. The issues have been briefed and are ready for decision. The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, at 20 Pa.C.S. Section 3182, provides that a trustee may be removed for: -2- No. 21-84-226 ORPHANS' COURT (1) . . . mismanaging the estate. . . (5) when, for any other reason, the interests of the [trust] are likely to be jeopardized by his continuance in office. Removal of a trustee is a drastic action and should only be done when there is a clear need. In re Estate of Mary A. Croessant, 482 Pa. 188 (1978). This is especially true when a decedent has expressed such confidence in the individual as to appoint them as trustee in a will. Id. Removal should occur only when it is required to protect the trust property. In re White, 506 Pa. 218 (1984). However, hostility among trustees may be so severe as to justify removal so that the proper administration of the trust is not jeopardized. In re Estate of Nassar, 467 Pa. 325 (1976). In Nassar, the Supreme Court stated: While inharmonious relations between trustee and cestui que trust, not altogether the fault of the former, will not generally be considered a sufficient cause for removal, yet where they have reached so acrimonious a condition as to make any personal intercourse impossible, and to hinder the proper transaction of business between the parties, a due regard for the interests of the estate and the rights of the cestui que trust may require a change of trustee. Barry Strock has treated the property owned by the Strock Family Trust as his own. He failed to notify his co-trustee when the other one-half interest in the property transferred to him. He has sued the Trust and its individual beneficiaries seeking to partition the farm. He has failed to adequately protect Trust property. He has engaged in self-dealing with respect to that property. He has refused to cooperate in the administration of the Trust with his co-trustee. The hostility between himself and his co-trustee is extreme. These factors are such that they hinder the proper transaction of -3- No. 21-84-226 ORPHANS' COURT business between the parties and jeopardize the interests of the Trust. We will order the removal of Barry Strock as a trustee. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2005, Barry L. Stock is removed as a trustee of the Strock Family Trust. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Richard E. Connell, Esquire For Petitioners Susann B. Morrison, Esquire F or Respondent :sal -4- IN RE: GEORGE W. STROCK FAMILY TRUST IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION No. 21-84-226 ORPHANS' COURT IN RE: PETITION TO REMOVE CO-TRUSTEE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2005, Barry L. Stock is removed as a trustee of the Strock Family Trust. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Richard E. Connell, Esquire For Petitioners Susann B. Morrison, Esquire F or Respondent :sal