{"id":8348,"date":"2020-12-14T09:26:26","date_gmt":"2020-12-14T14:26:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8348"},"modified":"2021-10-05T14:38:51","modified_gmt":"2021-10-05T18:38:51","slug":"supreme-court-to-hear-standing-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8348","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to Hear Standing Dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Superior Court decision in <em>Trust under Will of Augustus T. Ashton<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Supreme\/out\/203eal2020%20-%20104621548121126591.pdf#search=%22ashton%20%27Supreme%2bCourt%27%22\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">203 EAL 2020<\/a> (12\/2\/2020).  The order states the issue to be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Did the Superior Court err when it held that the equitable property interest in the trust res of a current vested beneficiary does not establish the beneficiary&#8217;s automatic standing to raise issues with the Trustees&#8217; breach of fiduciary duties to the Trust, but instead a court must evaluate each and every beneficiary&#8217;s individualized financial loss to determine if it meets some unknown threshold sufficient to meet the &#8220;substantial, direct and immediate&#8221; test?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Going forward, the docket number in the Supreme Court will be <a href=\"https:\/\/ujsportal.pacourts.us\/DocketSheets\/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=36+EAP+2020&amp;dnh=4qSQa4uzZawdphlhx%2f3aQQ%3d%3d\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">36 EAP 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=7926\">As previously reported<\/a>, the beneficiary in question is entitled to an annuity of $2,400 each year for life from the trust.  The Superior Court held that the beneficiary did not have have a \u201cdirect, immediate and substantial\u201d interest in transactions reported in the trustee\u2019s account covering a period during which the trust fund increased from about $5.56 million to about $73 million and so did not have standing to object to those transactions or to petition for the appointment of a co-trustee, but did have standing to object to the division of the trust into separate trusts, only one of which would be used to pay the annuity.\u00a0<em>Trust under Will of Augustus T. Ashton, Deceased, Dated January 20, 1950<\/em>,\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A24018-19o%20-%20104442666101563636.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">2020 PA Super 130<\/a>\u00a0(6\/3\/2020),\u00a0<em>rev\u2019g<\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courts.phila.gov\/pdf\/opinions\/195201039_2282019131859444.pdf\">No. 1039 ST of 1952<\/a>\u00a0(Philadelphia O.C. 2\/25\/2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Update:<\/span><\/em>  On 10\/4\/2021, the Supreme Court issued an opinion <a href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8839\">reversing the Superior Court in part<\/a>.   <em>Trust under Will of Augustus T. Ashton, Deceased, Dated January 20, 1950<\/em>, ___ Pa. ___, ___ A.3d ___, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Supreme\/out\/J-26-2021mo%20-%20104913938148224343.pdf?cb=1\" target=\"_blank\">36 EAP 2020<\/a> (Pa. 10\/4\/2021), (with <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Supreme\/out\/J-26-2021co%20-%20104913938148224344.pdf?cb=1\" target=\"_blank\">concurrence by Wecht, J.<\/a>). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Superior Court decision in Trust under Will of Augustus T. Ashton, 203 EAL 2020 (12\/2\/2020). The order states the issue to be: Did the Superior Court err when it held that &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=8348\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[29,34],"tags":[156],"class_list":["post-8348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-items","category-opinions","tag-standing","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8348"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8348\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8848,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8348\/revisions\/8848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}