## Facts

- Eleanor Spector created an inter vivos trust to provide for herself and her descendants; her daughters, Linda J. Spector and Barbara Berlin, were equal income beneficiaries after Eleanor’s death.
- The trust corpus included Eleanor’s 25% interest in two Brooklyn commercial properties; other family members owned the remaining interests.
- Eleanor and Linda initially served as co-trustees; the trust named Joel S. Sankel as successor co-trustee if Eleanor or Linda ceased serving without appointing a successor.
- The trust granted only a trustee other than either daughter discretion to distribute principal to Linda and/or Barbara “equally or unequally.”
- Eleanor died without appointing a successor; the trust’s succession clause thereby designated Sankel as co-trustee.
- At a dinner shortly after Eleanor’s death, Linda asked Sankel to step aside so her fiancé, Albert Jacobs, could serve; Linda and Jacobs claimed Sankel agreed, while Sankel stated he had just learned of the designation and needed to review the instrument.
- Linda had Jacobs execute documents purporting to appoint him as successor co-trustee; after reviewing the trust, Sankel executed and delivered a written acceptance of the co-trusteeship.
- Sankel commenced a CPLR article 77 proceeding to confirm his status as co-trustee and compel Linda to provide trust records; Linda cross-moved to dismiss, arguing Sankel had already renounced and could not revoke that renunciation.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged informal oral renunciation of a designated trusteeship, made at a social dinner, was binding and barred later acceptance.
2. Whether the trust’s succession clause made Sankel the proper successor co-trustee upon the settlor’s death without a designated replacement.
3. Whether Linda’s purported appointment of her fiancé as successor co-trustee was effective.
4. Whether equitable estoppel prevented Sankel from accepting the office based on alleged reliance on his dinner statements.
5. Whether CPLR article 77 was an appropriate procedure to determine trustee status and compel cooperation and records turnover.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment recognizing Sankel as the properly qualified successor co-trustee.
- The court held the alleged oral renunciation was not legally binding and did not preclude Sankel’s later written acceptance.
- The court rejected Linda’s attempt to substitute Jacobs for Sankel as inconsistent with the trust’s succession structure.
- The court found no basis to estop Sankel from serving.
- The court approved the use of CPLR article 77 to adjudicate trustee status and to compel cooperation in trust administration.

## Legal Principles

- A trustee’s disclaimer or renunciation must be clear and unequivocal; an informal, disputed oral statement in a social setting may be insufficient to bar later acceptance.
- Courts enforce the trust instrument’s express succession mechanism and protect the settlor’s selection of fiduciaries.
- Where a trust grants discretionary principal-distribution authority only to a trustee independent of conflicted beneficiaries, courts will resist efforts to replace that fiduciary with a beneficiary-aligned substitute.
- Equitable estoppel requires a clear representation and detrimental reliance; reliance is not reasonable where it conflicts with the trust’s explicit designation and the designated trustee acts promptly to accept.
- CPLR article 77 permits judicial determination of trustee status under an inter vivos trust and orders necessary to facilitate administration, including turnover of records.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trust’s express succession plan and the settlor’s intent to include an independent fiduciary, ruling that a claimed oral renunciation at a dinner did not prevent the designated successor from later accepting the trusteeship in writing and obtaining article 77 relief to administer the trust.


Sankel v. Spector, 33 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2006)