## Facts

- Linda Anton was owed child support and alimony arrearages by her ex-husband, Charles Anton.
- Charles was a beneficiary of the Antonia Gualtieri Living Trust.
- The trust provided that the trustee, “in its sole and absolute discretion, shall” pay Charles as much of the trust’s income and principal as the trustee deemed advisable for Charles’s education, health, maintenance, and support.
- The trust also included “Guidelines for Discretionary Distributions,” stating the trustees should be conservative, consider other resources available to Charles, and prioritize preserving principal.
- Linda filed a petition in probate court asking the court to direct the successor co-trustees, Mary Ann Gualtieri and Maria Christine Torres, to make distributions to Charles so that Charles could make the support payments.
- The trustees opposed the petition, arguing the trust was discretionary and that distributions could not be compelled.
- The probate court denied the petition for distribution, concluding the trust was a discretionary trust and the trustees could not be ordered to distribute funds to satisfy Charles’s support obligations.
- Linda appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Did the trust create a discretionary trust (rather than a support or spendthrift trust) given the language granting the trustee “sole and absolute discretion” and the accompanying distribution guidelines?
2. If the trust is discretionary, may an ex-spouse seeking child support and alimony arrearages compel the trustees to make distributions to the beneficiary to fund those obligations?

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order denying Linda’s petition for distribution.
- The court held the trust is a discretionary trust because distributions depend on the trustees’ “sole and absolute discretion,” and the “Guidelines for Discretionary Distributions” did not convert that discretion into an enforceable duty to pay.
- Because Charles lacked an ascertainable, enforceable right to receive distributions, neither Charles nor Linda (as a creditor) could compel distributions of income or principal to satisfy the arrearages.

## Legal Principles

- Interpretation of a trust instrument is reviewed de novo, and the settlor’s intent is determined from the trust’s language.
- A discretionary trust permits (but does not require) the trustee to pay income or principal as the trustee determines appropriate; in that setting the beneficiary has no fixed, enforceable right to payment.
- By contrast, a support trust directs the trustee to provide for the beneficiary’s support and maintenance, creating a more enforceable distribution obligation tied to that standard.
- A spendthrift provision restricts transfer and creditor claims against a beneficiary’s interest, but creditor analysis still turns on whether the beneficiary has an enforceable right to distributions.
- Under Michigan authority addressing discretionary trusts, creditors cannot compel a trustee to make discretionary distributions to create a fund from which the creditor may collect, because the beneficiary has no ascertainable interest to reach.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals treated the Antonia Gualtieri Living Trust as purely discretionary based on its “sole and absolute discretion” distribution clause and its nonbinding distribution guidelines, and it held that Linda Anton could not force the successor co-trustees to distribute trust assets to Charles Anton to pay child-support and alimony arrears.


In re Antonia Gualtieri Living Trust, 2019 WL 1265167 (2019)