## Facts

- Sonya C. Miller died owning farmland, a residence, royalty interests in mineral leases, and personal property.
- Sonya’s will devised the farmland outright to her son Lawrence Bradley (“Brad”) Miller.
- The will directed that the remainder of her estate be placed into a testamentary trust for the benefit of all five of Sonya’s children.
- The will named Brad as trustee and gave him “uncontrolled” (described by the district court as “absolute”) discretion to distribute trust income and principal to any beneficiary, at any time, in any amount he deemed advisable, including the ability to exclude beneficiaries from distributions.
- Over roughly 20 years of administration, Brad used trust property in ways that benefitted the farmland he owned individually.
- Brad took all income from the mineral leases and deposited the proceeds directly into a personal bank account he held jointly with his wife, Amy Starr Miller.
- Acting as trustee, Brad eventually transferred mineral interests out of the trust and into his own name, leaving the trust with essentially no assets.
- Four of Sonya’s other children—including Denise Roenne—sued Brad and Amy, alleging Brad breached fiduciary duties by converting trust assets for their personal use.
- Brad responded that the trust instrument permitted his actions because it gave him absolute discretion over distributions.
- The district court entered judgment for Brad and Amy, reasoning that Brad’s discretionary authority prevented judicial interference with his distribution decisions.
- The four siblings appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Sonya’s testamentary trust was a discretionary trust (rather than a support trust) based on language granting the trustee “absolute” or “uncontrolled” discretion and allowing exclusion of beneficiaries.
2. Whether a grant of “absolute discretion” prevents a court from reviewing a trustee’s conduct when beneficiaries allege abuse of discretion, bad faith, or self-dealing.
3. Whether broad discretionary language and any exculpatory provisions can eliminate a trustee’s fundamental fiduciary duties of loyalty, impartiality, and prudent administration.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held the trust was a discretionary trust because the trustee had authority to make or withhold distributions and could exclude beneficiaries, meaning no beneficiary had a right to any distribution.
- The court held that even in a discretionary trust, a trustee’s decisions are reviewable for abuse of discretion, bad faith, or conduct so arbitrary and unreasonable that it is effectively bad faith.
- The court held that a trustee remains subject to fiduciary duties—including loyalty, impartiality, and prudence—and a trust cannot relieve a trustee of all accountability.
- The case returned to the district court for further proceedings applying the correct legal standards to Brad’s conduct and any claimed defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Kansas law distinguishes support trusts (beneficiaries can demand support distributions) from discretionary trusts (distributions depend on trustee judgment and beneficiaries generally cannot compel payment).
- “Absolute,” “sole,” or “uncontrolled” discretion does not make a trustee’s administration immune from review; courts may intervene for abuse of discretion, bad faith, or arbitrary and unreasonable conduct.
- Trustees owe baseline fiduciary duties imposed by law, including:
  - Duty of loyalty (administer the trust solely in the beneficiaries’ interests),
  - Duty of impartiality (treat multiple beneficiaries fairly in managing and distributing trust property),
  - Duty of prudent administration (act as a prudent person would, considering the trust’s purposes and terms).
- A settlor may broaden a trustee’s powers, but cannot eliminate the fiduciary nature of the office by removing all accountability.
- A trustee’s reasonable, good-faith reliance on express trust terms may limit liability, but it does not authorize dishonest administration or self-interested diversion of trust property.

## Conclusion

Roenne v. Miller holds that a trustee’s broad discretionary authority does not shield alleged self-dealing from judicial review: even where a trust grants “absolute” discretion, the trustee must act in good faith and remain accountable under the duties of loyalty, impartiality, and prudent administration, requiring reversal and remand for application of those standards to the challenged conduct.


Roenne v. Miller, 475 P.3d 708 (2020)