## Facts

- A settlor created a trust naming a corporate fiduciary as trustee and designating Harold A. Davis as the lifetime income beneficiary.
- Upon Davis’s death, the trust principal would pass to Davis’s then-living children; if none, to specified descendants of the settlor, and if none, to Lafayette College.
- Davis petitioned to remove the incumbent corporate trustee (U.S. Bank National Association, as successor trustee) and to appoint U.S. Trust Company of Delaware (UST) as successor trustee.
- Davis asserted the petition was brought on behalf of all qualified beneficiaries, including his two minor children.
- Davis supported removal with evidence that UST’s trustee fees were materially lower, that administration would yield state tax savings, and that UST offered greater convenience and coordination with an independent investment advisor.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment removing U.S. Bank and appointing UST; U.S. Bank appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri law permits removal of a trustee without misconduct when all qualified beneficiaries request removal and removal is in the beneficiaries’ best interests and not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust.
2. Whether contingent remainder beneficiaries, including a charitable remainder beneficiary, had to be joined as necessary parties or could be bound through statutory representation doctrines.
3. Whether Davis had a conflict that prevented him from representing his minor children’s interests in seeking trustee removal.
4. Whether summary judgment was improper due to disputed material facts regarding fees, discovery needs, or inconsistency with the trust’s material purposes.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment removing U.S. Bank and appointing UST as successor trustee.
- The court held the statutory requirements for beneficiary-initiated removal without wrongdoing were satisfied.
- The court rejected the argument that non-joined contingent beneficiaries made the action defective, relying on representation principles to bind their interests.
- The court found no disabling conflict preventing Davis from acting for his minor children in this proceeding.
- The court concluded U.S. Bank failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A trustee may be removed without proof of misconduct when all qualified beneficiaries request removal, removal is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and removal is in the beneficiaries’ best interests.  
- A trust’s “material purpose” is determined from the instrument’s substantive objectives; the mere designation of a particular corporate fiduciary is not treated as a material purpose absent clear indication the settlor intended that fiduciary to be indispensable.
- Statutory representation (including virtual representation) can allow current beneficiaries to represent and bind the interests of contingent or future beneficiaries when there is no relevant conflict.
- Summary judgment is appropriate in trustee-removal litigation when the moving party’s evidence establishes the statutory elements and the opposing party fails to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

## Conclusion

The court upheld removal and replacement of a corporate trustee on summary judgment under Missouri’s trust code because all qualified beneficiaries sought removal, the change did not defeat any material purpose of the trust, and the record showed the substitution would better serve the beneficiaries while adequately protecting non-joined contingent interests through representation doctrines.


Davis v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n, 243 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)