Justices: Trustee of revocable trust serves self

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted a revocable trust case to answer the first impression question: While a trust is revocable, whom does the trustee serve? The justices concluded that an Indiana woman, as trustee, served herself.

In Harold O. Fulp, Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland, 41S01-1306-TR-426, Harold Fulp Jr. sought specific performance of the purchase agreement he made with his elderly mother to buy the family farm at a discounted price. Ruth Fulp placed the farm in a revocable trust and was the trustee, primary beneficiary and settlor. Her daughter Nancy Gilliland, who became successor trustee after Ruth Fulp resigned as trustee, refused to proceed with the sale. Fulp Jr. had purchased the farm at the same per-acre discount that Gilliland had paid when she previously purchased another portion of the farm.  

The trial court denied specific performance because it found Ruth Fulp breached her fidicuary duty to her children by selling the farm at a low price and Fulp Jr. breached his fiduciary duty as a beneficiary by participating in the sale. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, believing Ruth Fulp had sold the farm as settlor, not trustee.

“Nancy sought transfer, asking us to decide whether the trustee of a revocable trust owes a duty to the settlor alone or also to the remainder beneficiaries,” Justice Loretta Rush wrote. “We granted transfer to address that issue, and we conclude that while a revocable trust is revocable, the trustee only owes a duty to the settlor. Therefore, Ruth was free to sell the farm as trustee, as the purchase agreement reflected, without breaching any fiduciary duty. And since Ruth owed her children no duty as trustee, she had no need to sell the farm as settlor, as the Court of Appeals concluded—nor would the facts in this case support any intent to amend the Trust.”

Ruth Fulp’s fiduciary duty was to herself, as settlor and primary beneficiary. That duty does not extend to her beneficiary children, because that would mean she was serving two masters, the justices held. Such conflicting duties would essentially make the trust irrevocable because complying as trustee with her own wishes to revoke the trust would breach the purported duty to the remainder beneficiaries by placing her own interests above theirs.

Since the trial court misinterpreted the trust and law by determining Ruth Fulp had a duty to her children that she breached and Fulp Jr. aided in that breach, the court abused its discretion in denying specific performance, Rush wrote.




  • mo better
    Victim: Dishonest Men Song: "John Wesley Harding" (1967) Method: A gun in every hand, i.e., two guns Motive: Money; straightening out situations; avoiding foolish moves Verdict: No charge held against him could they prove
  • bob zimmmerman
    Huh is that the guy who shot trayvohn? lol
    • Cannot resist
      Well I think Robert Zimmerman sang it best, "You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody."

      Post a comment to this story

      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
      1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

      2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

      3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

      4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

      5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.