## Facts

- The John B. Faile Trust was created in 1966 for the benefit of several individual beneficiaries.
- The trust named James J. Preble as an individual co-trustee and United Bank and Trust Company (United) as corporate co-trustee.
- After Preble died, United became the sole trustee.
- Through later corporate transactions, Fleet National Bank (Fleet) became the successor corporate trustee and served as sole fiduciary.
- In 2001, after Connecticut amended Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-242(a) to add subdivision (4), all beneficiaries petitioned the Probate Court to remove Fleet under § 45a-242(a)(4) and to appoint Putnam Trust Company (Putnam) as successor trustee.
- The Probate Court granted the petition and removed Fleet, noting that the earlier version of § 45a-242(a) allowed removal only for incapacity or neglect of duties, and the court could not find Fleet deficient under that earlier, fault-based standard.
- Applying § 45a-242(a)(4), the Probate Court found: (1) all beneficiaries wanted Fleet removed; (2) removal best served the beneficiaries’ interests because Putnam already administered other trusts for them, would be more efficient, offered more personalized service, and charged lower fees; (3) removal was not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust; and (4) a suitable successor fiduciary (Putnam) was available.
- The Probate Court also found the settlor had not selected Fleet in particular to administer the trust and the trust did not grant unique discretion that made Fleet the only trustee able to carry out administration.
- Fleet appealed the Probate Court’s removal order to the Superior Court, relying on Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-243, which allows an appeal by a fiduciary removed “for cause.”
- The Superior Court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, concluding Fleet had not been removed “for cause” within the meaning of § 45a-243.
- Fleet appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

## Issues

1. Whether a fiduciary removed under Conn. Gen. Stat. (Rev. to 2001) § 45a-242(a)(4) has been removed “for cause” so as to have standing to appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-243.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment dismissing Fleet’s probate appeal.
- Removal under § 45a-242(a)(4) is not removal “for cause” as that phrase is used in § 45a-243.
- Because Fleet was not removed “for cause,” it was not statutorily aggrieved and lacked standing to appeal.
- Without statutory standing, the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Fleet’s appeal, so dismissal was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A Probate Court removal order may be appealed by a fiduciary only to the extent the appeal statute grants that right; if the statute does not confer standing, the reviewing court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
- In § 45a-243, “removed for cause” refers to removals based on some form of fiduciary fault such as incapacity, neglect, or similar misconduct-type grounds, not removals based solely on beneficiary preference or changed circumstances.
- Section 45a-242(a)(4) authorizes a “no-fault” removal when all beneficiaries request removal (or circumstances have substantially changed), the court finds removal best serves beneficiaries’ interests and does not conflict with a material purpose of the instrument, and a suitable successor is available.
- A legislative expansion of Probate Court authority to remove fiduciaries under § 45a-242(a) does not, by itself, expand appellate standing under § 45a-243 absent a corresponding change to the appeal statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that Fleet’s involuntary removal under § 45a-242(a)(4) was not a removal “for cause” under § 45a-243, so Fleet lacked standing to appeal the Probate Court’s order and the Superior Court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


In re Fleet National Bank's Appeal from Probate, 837 A.2d 785 (2004)