If you are named as a beneficiary in a trust — perhaps a parent’s revocable living trust — and you believe the trustee is mismanaging assets, engaging in self-dealing, or cutting you out through suspicious amendments, your first instinct is to take action. But here is a question that stops many beneficiaries cold: do you actually have standing to sue while the person who created the trust is still living?
A 2025 Iowa appellate decision, Winslow v. Poole, has brought this question back into sharp focus. The court ruled that a remainder beneficiary had no standing to challenge his mother’s trust — even as her dementia worsened and his expected inheritance evaporated — because the trust was still revocable during her lifetime. Ohio law reaches very similar conclusions, grounded in explicit statutes and case law that consistently protect the settlor’s autonomy while limiting beneficiaries’ rights until after death.
This article unpacks what these rules mean for trustees and beneficiaries in Ohio, how the law compares to the broader framework of the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) and the Restatements of Trusts, and when litigation may actually be possible.
I. The Iowa Case: Winslow v. Poole (2025)
In Winslow v. Poole, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 589 (decided July 23, 2025), Ann Winslow created a revocable trust in 1991 naming her son Robert as the secondary beneficiary who would inherit after her death. After marrying Ernest Poole in 1996, Ann began experiencing memory loss and cognitive decline. Over the ensuing decades, she amended her trust multiple times to benefit her stepchildren — the Pooles — substantially reducing Robert’s expected share. By 2022, Ann had been diagnosed with severe dementia and was subject to a temporary conservatorship.
Robert filed a petition alleging undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, tortious interference with inheritance, breach of fiduciary duty, and self-dealing. Critically, he filed while Ann was still alive. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of dismissal and ordered Robert’s case dismissed for lack of standing.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Iowa court applied a two-part standing test: the claimant must (1) have a specific, personal, and legal interest in the litigation, and (2) be injuriously affected. Robert’s interest, the court held, failed both prongs during Ann’s lifetime. The trust expressly authorized the trustee to distribute principal — even to exhaustion — for Ann’s benefit. This meant Robert might receive nothing even if no wrongdoing occurred. His interest was therefore contingent and speculative, not immediate or vested.
The court also rejected Robert’s argument that Ann’s permanent incapacity had effectively rendered the trust irrevocable, choosing not to decide that question and instead grounding the dismissal entirely in standing doctrine. The court further held that Robert lacked standing to pursue tortious interference with inheritance and breach of fiduciary duty claims, because the agent’s duties ran to Ann as principal, not to Robert as a contingent beneficiary.
The case is a significant practical reminder: even compelling facts about cognitive decline and suspected manipulation may not be enough to get a beneficiary into court while the settlor lives.
II. Ohio Law Reaches the Same Result — Through Statute
Ohio has codified the same principle with unusual clarity. Two provisions of the Ohio Trust Code (OTC) work together to limit beneficiary rights during the settlor’s lifetime.
R.C. 5808.13: The Duty to Inform and Report
Ohio Revised Code § 5808.13(A) broadly requires a trustee to keep current beneficiaries reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and to respond to their requests for information. Section 5808.13(C) mandates annual reports listing trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements. These provisions, taken alone, would suggest beneficiaries have robust informational rights.
But R.C. 5808.13(G) carves out a critical exception: “During the lifetime of the settlor of a revocable trust, whether or not the settlor has capacity to revoke the trust, the trustee’s duties under this section are owed exclusively to the settlor.” That final phrase — “whether or not the settlor has capacity to revoke” — is especially significant. It means incapacity alone does not transform the trust into an irrevocable instrument for purposes of a beneficiary’s rights against the trustee.
R.C. 5806.03: Settlor’s Powers and Control
R.C. 5806.03(A) reinforces this framework. It provides that during the lifetime of the settlor of a revocable trust, the rights of the beneficiaries are subject to the control of the settlor and the trustee’s duties — including the duty to inform under R.C. 5808.13 — are owed exclusively to the settlor. The legislature’s intent is unmistakable: while the settlor lives, the trust belongs to the settlor. Beneficiaries have no cognizable rights to enforce against the trustee.
Hasselbring v. Bernard (2019)
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals applied these statutes directly in Hasselbring v. Bernard, 2019-Ohio-2812. Scott Hasselbring sought information about his mother June’s revocable living trust from his sister Bonnie, who served as trustee, because he was concerned about mismanagement. June was still living. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for the trustee.
The court analyzed the apparent conflict between R.C. 5808.13(A)’s general duty to inform beneficiaries and R.C. 5808.13(G)’s specific exclusion for revocable trusts. Applying the canon of statutory construction codified in R.C. 1.51 — that a specific provision controls over a general one when they conflict — the court held that R.C. 5808.13(G) must be read as an exception to subdivision (A). While the settlor was living, the trustee’s duties were owed exclusively to her. Scott had no right to trust information, regardless of his concerns about mismanagement.
The Hasselbring result is strikingly parallel to Winslow v. Poole. In both cases, a worried beneficiary faced a trustee suspected of misconduct. In both cases, the courts held that the beneficiary’s concerns — however sincere — could not create legal rights that the applicable trust law simply does not grant during the settlor’s lifetime.
III. The Uniform Trust Code: The National Framework
Ohio’s approach is not an outlier. Ohio enacted the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), and its treatment of revocable trusts in R.C. 5806.03 and 5808.13 directly mirrors UTC §§ 603 and 813. Under UTC § 603, while a trust is revocable, the rights of the beneficiaries are subject to the control of the settlor, and the trustee’s duties are owed exclusively to the settlor. The comments to the UTC make the policy rationale explicit: a revocable trust is essentially an extension of the settlor’s will, a will substitute. It would be incongruous to allow beneficiaries to challenge or supervise the administration of a will before the testator’s death, and revocable trust law follows the same logic.
Jurisdictions across the country applying the UTC have consistently held that remainder beneficiaries of revocable trusts lack standing to bring claims against trustees or challenge trust administration during the settlor’s lifetime. The settlor’s retained power to revoke or amend means that the beneficiary’s interest remains contingent — it may never vest. There is simply no ripe legal dispute.
IV. The Restatements: How Assignees and Irrevocable Trust Beneficiaries Differ
The Restatements of Trusts add important texture to this area of law, particularly with respect to irrevocable trusts and the rights of assignees.
Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 200: Who Can Sue the Trustee
The Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 200 states that only a beneficiary (or one suing on their behalf) can maintain a suit against the trustee to enforce the trust or redress a breach. Comment g to that section, however, expands the category of “beneficiary” to include transferees of a beneficiary’s interest. Under this view, if a beneficiary assigns their interest to another person, that assignee steps into the beneficiary’s shoes and may sue the trustee to protect the transferred interest.
The Ohio case of Alford v. Alford, 2014 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 10146 (Franklin Cty. C.P.), applied this principle directly. In that case, Ronald Alford created a charitable remainder unitrust and, through the parties’ agreed divorce decree, assigned 75% of the unitrust amount to his ex-wife Tracy. Ronald later argued that Tracy was merely an assignee of his interest — not a beneficiary — and therefore could not sue him as trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. The court rejected this argument. Citing Restatement (Second) § 200, comment g, and the UTC’s comment to the definition of “beneficiary” (which explicitly includes assignees), the court held that Tracy was a beneficiary of the trust and could maintain her breach of trust claim. The lesson: in the context of an irrevocable trust, the courts will look beyond formal labels to determine who truly holds a beneficial interest.
Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 74: Revocable Trusts
The Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 74 aligns with Ohio and Iowa on revocable trusts. While the trust is revocable, the trustee’s duties run to the settlor. The rights of other beneficiaries are subordinate to the settlor’s continuing control. This framework reflects a deliberate policy choice: the law honors the settlor’s autonomy to manage — and change — their estate plan during their lifetime, free from interference by beneficiaries whose interests remain inchoate.
V. The Critical Distinction: Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts
The entire framework turns on a single pivotal question: is the trust revocable or irrevocable?
Once a trust becomes irrevocable — typically upon the settlor’s death, but also upon the trust’s express terms or an irrevocable declaration at creation — the calculus changes entirely. The trustee’s duties shift to the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries gain enforceable rights. Under R.C. 5808.13(A) through (F), they are entitled to information, accountings, and annual reports. They may sue to enforce the trust or redress a breach of fiduciary duty. As the Hasselbring court noted, cases involving irrevocable trusts are treated differently: there, the trustee does owe duties to the beneficiaries.
What About Trusts That Are Irrevocable from the Start?
Some trusts are irrevocable by design. A charitable remainder unitrust — like the one at issue in Alford v. Alford — is irrevocable upon creation, as required by the Internal Revenue Code for its tax-exempt status. Special needs trusts, certain asset protection trusts, and many testamentary trusts are similarly irrevocable. For beneficiaries of these trusts, the rules described above for revocable trusts do not apply. From the moment of creation, the trustee owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries have standing to enforce those duties.
The Unsettled Question: Does Incapacity Make a Trust Irrevocable?
One unresolved question lurks at the edges of both the Iowa and Ohio cases. If a settlor becomes permanently incapacitated and can never again exercise the power of revocation, does the trust effectively become irrevocable? In Winslow v. Poole, the Iowa Court of Appeals declined to decide this issue, resolving the case on standing grounds instead. Ohio’s statutes — particularly R.C. 5808.13(G)’s express language that the rule applies “whether or not the settlor has capacity to revoke” — suggest that Ohio courts would likely reject this argument and continue to treat the trust as revocable for purposes of the trustee’s duties.
This is an important strategic consideration for counsel. Arguing that incapacity has rendered a trust irrevocable faces a significant statutory headwind in Ohio. That argument may have more purchase in Iowa and other UTC states whose statutes do not contain the express “whether or not the settlor has capacity” qualification, but it remains unresolved law.
VI. What This Means for Trustees and Beneficiaries in Practice
For Trustees of Revocable Trusts
Ohio law affords significant protection to trustees of revocable trusts during the settlor’s lifetime. As long as the settlor is alive, the trustee’s obligations run exclusively to the settlor, not to remainder beneficiaries. A trustee who is acting consistently with the settlor’s instructions and the trust instrument has strong grounds to resist discovery demands, accounting requests, and threatened litigation from beneficiaries — unless and until the settlor dies or the trust becomes irrevocable by its own terms. That said, trustees who abuse this protection by self-dealing, commingling assets, or manipulating a cognitively diminished settlor may face liability once the trust becomes irrevocable and the full story comes to light.
For Beneficiaries Who Fear Mismanagement
Beneficiaries who suspect that a trustee is mismanaging a revocable trust, unduly influencing a vulnerable settlor, or depleting assets are not entirely without recourse — but their options during the settlor’s lifetime are limited and the procedural hurdles are substantial. Key considerations include:
- Guardianship and conservatorship proceedings may offer an indirect avenue. If the settlor lacks capacity, a court-appointed guardian or conservator can investigate the trust administration on the settlor’s behalf and may have standing to bring claims against the trustee.
- Power of attorney abuse claims may lie against agents, not trustees. In Winslow v. Poole, the court confirmed that the trustee (Iowa State Bank) had standing to challenge the agent’s self-dealing — not the remainder beneficiary. Beneficiaries who believe an agent is looting the principal’s estate may need to seek the trustee’s intervention.
- Preserving evidence is critical. Even if a beneficiary cannot bring a claim today, the facts that support future claims are developing now. Documenting suspicious transactions, changes in the settlor’s mental state, and communications with the trustee creates the evidentiary foundation for post-death litigation.
- Irrevocable trust rights are different. If you are a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust, you are in a fundamentally different legal position. You have enforceable rights now, and a trustee who refuses to provide information or accountings may be in breach of fiduciary duty.
VII. Comparative Summary: Iowa, Ohio, UTC, and the Restatements
The following framework captures how each source of law addresses beneficiary standing for revocable and irrevocable trusts:
- Iowa (Winslow v. Poole): Remainder beneficiaries of revocable trusts lack standing during the settlor’s lifetime because their interest is speculative and contingent. Trustee’s duties run to the settlor. Predeath challenges are prohibited, consistent with the rule against predeath will contests. Incapacity does not automatically render the trust irrevocable (left open). No standing for tortious interference or fiduciary duty claims against agents.
- Ohio (OTC, Hasselbring v. Bernard, Alford v. Alford): Same result as Iowa, but grounded in explicit statutory language (R.C. 5808.13(G), 5806.03(A)). The statute expressly extends the protection even where the settlor lacks capacity to revoke. For irrevocable trusts, beneficiaries have full rights and trustees owe direct fiduciary duties. Assignees of a beneficiary’s interest in an irrevocable trust acquire beneficiary status and may sue the trustee.
- Uniform Trust Code (UTC §§ 603, 813): Same framework: trustee’s duties in a revocable trust are owed exclusively to the settlor while alive. Beneficiary rights are subordinate to the settlor’s control. Wide majority of UTC states follow this rule. Ohio’s codification is a direct implementation of this model.
- Restatements (Second and Third): Consistent with UTC and state law. Restatement (Second) § 200 limits standing to beneficiaries (including assignees) in irrevocable trust contexts. Restatement (Third) § 74 confirms that in revocable trusts, trustee duties run to the settlor while living. The Restatements have influenced the UTC and state trust codes broadly.
VIII. Key Takeaways for Ohio Trustees and Beneficiaries
- The trustee of a revocable trust owes duties exclusively to the settlor while the settlor is alive — period. Beneficiaries cannot compel information, accountings, or access to trust assets while the settlor lives.
- Incapacity does not automatically convert a revocable trust into an irrevocable one under Ohio law. R.C. 5808.13(G) explicitly applies whether or not the settlor has capacity.
- Beneficiaries of irrevocable trusts have enforceable rights and may sue trustees for breach of fiduciary duty, demand accountings, and obtain judicial intervention.
- Assignees of a beneficiary’s interest — for example, a divorcing spouse who receives trust distributions by court order — acquire beneficiary status under the Restatement and the UTC comment, and may protect their interest by suing the trustee.
- Predeath challenges to revocable trusts face extreme difficulty in Ohio, consistent with the bar on predeath will contests. The appropriate time to contest undue influence, lack of capacity, and breach of fiduciary duty is typically after the settlor’s death.
- Trustees who self-deal or mismanage during the settlor’s incapacity are not immune forever. Once the trust becomes irrevocable, beneficiaries may have claims reaching back to the period of alleged mismanagement.
Questions About Your Rights as a Trustee or Beneficiary in Ohio?
Trust litigation is one of the most nuanced areas of Ohio probate law. The rules governing who can sue, when, and for what differ dramatically depending on whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable, whether the settlor is living, and how the beneficiary’s interest was created or transferred. Getting those foundational questions right — at the outset — is essential to any successful trust dispute.
At the Law Offices of Daniel McGowan, LLC, we represent trustees, beneficiaries, and interested parties in trust and estate disputes throughout Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Whether you are a trustee facing demands from beneficiaries, a remainder beneficiary who suspects wrongdoing, or a family member navigating the aftermath of a loved one’s death, we can help you understand your rights and options.
We handle matters in Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Summit, Geauga, and neighboring counties, as well as out-of-state matters requiring Ohio counsel.
Contact us today at (216) 616-7592 or visit www.mcgowanlawohio.com to schedule a consultation.
Daniel McGowan is a probate and estate litigation attorney based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has been representing clients in trust, estate, and guardianship disputes since 1994. He is licensed in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult an attorney regarding the specific facts and laws applicable to your situation.