JASON LYTLE v. KIMBERLY S. MACKIE, No: 2020ADV252683, Cuyahoga County Probate Court
Jan 25, 2021OUTCOME: Summary Judgment
The Plaintiff filed this action claiming breach of fiduciary duty resulting from the Defendants failure to notify Plaintiff of the death of Blaine G. Lytle, report information to him and inform him of ... details regarding the Trust estate, as well as for refusing to provide a copy of the Trust to him upon demand. The Court finds that the Trust at issue is titled the “Blaine Lytle Irrv Tr Dated May 22,2002, fka The Lytle Revocable Living Trust Dated May 22, 2002, fka the Lytle Family Trust dated May 22, 2002. A copy of the Amendment and Restatement of the Trust dated August 1, 2012 is attached to the Affidavit of Kimberly S. Mackie in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Trust specifically disinherits the Plaintiff and states that he has no interest in the Trust. The Court finds that Plaintiff sets forth no authority in support of Count I of his Complaint alleging a breach of duty for failure to notify him of his father’s death. In fact, there is no authority and no duty to so inform. The Court finds that in Count II of his Complaint the Plaintiff alleges self-dealing of trustees and failure to keep beneficiaries informed in violation of R.C. 5808.13. The Court finds that Plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the Trust and therefore the trustees have no fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiff and have no duty under section 5808.13 to inform and report to the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges conversion and wrongful conveyance. Plaintiff specifically complains about the circumstances surrounding the sale of real property owned by the Trust. Plaintiff confuses the duties of trustees with the duties of an executor or administrator of an estate. The Court finds that there are no material issues of fact regarding the duties of Defendants to the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Trust speaks for itself and created no fiduciary duty between the parties. The Court finds and Orders, as a matter of law, summary judgment is granted in favor of the Defendants on Counts II and III of the Complaint.
