## Facts

- Robert McLean became a quadriplegic after a 1996 accident and received a large products-liability settlement.
- Settlement proceeds were placed into a special-needs trust designed to preserve Medicaid and other benefits through supplemental-needs provisions.
- The instrument named co-trustees and designated attorney J. Michael Ponder as “Trust Protector.”
- The trust stated the Trust Protector’s authority was exercised “in a fiduciary capacity,” but provided he was not liable for actions taken “in good faith.”
- The Trust Protector was given three express powers: (1) remove a trustee; (2) appoint a successor trustee; and (3) resign.
- The trust otherwise detailed trustee powers and duties, but did not assign the Trust Protector day-to-day supervisory or directive authority over trustees.
- Original trustees resigned over time; successor trustees were appointed, including through the Trust Protector’s appointment power.
- The Trust alleged trustees made improper or imprudent expenditures that depleted assets and that Ponder failed to act despite being told trustees were depleting the trust.
- Evidence included expert testimony that a prudent trust protector should have removed trustees by December 1999, while other evidence indicated significant depletion occurred in late 1999 before Ponder had notice warranting removal.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust instrument imposed on the Trust Protector a duty to monitor trustees’ administration and intervene to prevent mismanagement, beyond the express removal and appointment powers.
2. Whether the Trust presented submissible evidence of duty, breach, and causation sufficient to avoid a directed verdict at the close of its case.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Ponder.
- The court held the Trust Protector’s authority and duties were limited to those expressly granted in the trust instrument.
- The trust did not create an ongoing duty for the Trust Protector to supervise trustees or direct their investment or expenditure decisions.
- The Trust failed to present substantial evidence that any loss was caused by a breach of duties within the Trust Protector’s limited authority, given the timing of the depletion and lack of proof that earlier removal would have prevented loss.

## Legal Principles

- A trust protector’s powers and duties arise from, and are limited by, the trust instrument; courts will not infer supervisory obligations absent clear language.
- Describing a trust protector’s role as exercised “in a fiduciary capacity” does not, by itself, create broad monitoring or management duties beyond the specific powers conferred.
- A directed verdict is proper when the claimant fails to present submissible evidence on essential elements, including a defined duty under the instrument and causation linking the alleged breach to trust losses.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the trust protector because the trust granted only limited structural powers (remove/appoint/resign), did not impose trustee-monitoring duties, and the evidence did not show that any inaction within the protector’s actual authority caused the trust’s asset depletion.


Robert T. McLean Irrevocable Trust u/a/d March 31, 1999 v. Ponder, 418 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)