Appellate panel hears arguments in trust dispute over alleged $5.5 million; counsel differ on whether summary judgment was proper

An appellate panel heard oral argument in a dispute over whether Matthew Veeder should be removed as successor trustee of the survivor's trust created under the Filer living trust and whether he should be required to pay respondents' attorney fees.

Jennifer Crowe, counsel for appellant Matthew Veeder, told the court Veeder is appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment that removed him as trustee and is cross‑appealing a ruling requiring him to pay respondents' fees. Crowe said the trial court acted on a petition for insufficient cause under section 5.9.1 of the trust and that portions of the verified petition were subject to the so‑called "dead man" statute, which limits admissible testimony from certain parties. She argued that even if some statements were excluded, other testimony remained from which a jury could reasonably infer facts favorable to Veeder, and that the question before the panel is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists under the summary‑judgment standard.

"There was a lot of speculation put into the record of damage, which is not admissible evidence," Crowe said, and she emphasized that several contested transfers in the record had not been established as improper and therefore do not necessarily show damage to the trust.

Respondents' counsel Adrienne MacEntee urged the court to affirm. MacEntee described evidence she said established cause for removal: that Veeder "procured 5 and a half million dollars from his elderly client" while the client was hospitalized, arranged an amendment that made him successor trustee and then refused to appoint an independent investigator after the client's death. "If a lawyer taking 5 and a half million dollars from his client isn't material, then what is?" MacEntee asked the panel.

MacEntee pointed to expert testimony and record citations (respondents' expert Mark Vohr and appellant's expert Joshua Brothers) that, in her account, showed Veeder had a duty to marshal assets and investigate potential claims that could belong to the trust. She argued the harm included the failure to investigate a ~$5.5 million claim that, if pursued, might have returned assets to the survivor's trust and its beneficiaries. On fees, MacEntee said the trial court abused its discretion by imposing respondents' attorney fees on the trust rather than on Veeder personally and cited case law—Allard v. Pacific—that, in her view, supports ordering a trustee who causes litigation through inexcusable conduct to pay fees.

The judges pressed both sides on narrow questions of the record: which statements had been stricken under the dead man statute, which lines and pages of the clerk's papers remained, and whether the remaining testimony could generate different reasonable inferences (gifts intended to reward a longtime friend versus elder exploitation causing significant monetary damage). Crowe repeatedly noted specific page and line ranges she said the trial court struck and argued that the remaining portions allowed multiple reasonable outcomes.

The bench repeatedly framed the central legal issue as whether, under de novo review, any genuine issue of material fact remains as to damage and cause for removal. Both sides acknowledged high dollar amounts are in the record but disputed whether the record establishes that those transfers were improper or whether reasonable jurors could view them as gifts consistent with the grantor's intent.

After argument, the court submitted the case and took it under advisement. The panel's decision will resolve both the appeal of the trustee's removal and the cross‑appeal over which party must bear the respondents' attorney fees.