Sponsored By

Arbitration Agreement in Trust Is UnenforceableArbitration Agreement in Trust Is Unenforceable

Virginia court says the clause isn’t part of a contract, because trusts aren't contracts.

Shannon Laymon-Pecoraro, Shareholder

November 11, 2020

2 Min Read
lawyer-signing-contract-utah778.jpg
utah778/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In Kelly v. Giuliano, CL-2020-0007479, (Va. Cir. Ct. Sept. 21, 2020), the Fairfax County City Court ruled that a trust isn’t a contract, and therefore, an arbitration provision contained in a trust agreement is unenforceable.

In the underlying suit, the plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties and conversion. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was subject to the arbitration clause contained in the trust agreement. The plaintiff responded that there was no written contract in which plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his future claims and that the trust itself isn’t a contract.

Relying upon Virginia Code Section 8.01-581.01, the court found that there are two envisioned circumstances for which arbitration would be enforceable and that neither applied to the current matter. Specifically, an arbitration provision would be enforceable when there’s a “written agreement to submit an existing controversy to arbitration” or when there’s a “written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties.” Since the controversy at hand didn’t exist at the time the trust was established, there could be no requirement to arbitrate under the “existing controversy” scenario. Additionally, since contracts require mutual assent and consideration, the independent act of a settlor of the trust doesn’t create a contract under the law, and therefore, the second scenario was inapplicable.

Although the court had already ruled in plaintiff’s favor, the court furthered its analysis by stating that even if the trust was a contract, due to the narrow application because of the terms of the trust, only disputes regarding interpretation or enforcement of the trust agreement would be subject to arbitration. Since the issue at hand involved the conduct of the trustees and didn’t involve interpretation or enforcement of the trust agreement, arbitration wouldn’t be required under the terms of the trust.

This case may cause more estate and trust beneficiaries to engage in litigation as opposed to alternative dispute mechanisms, such as mediation or arbitration.

About the Author

Shannon Laymon-Pecoraro

Shareholder, Hook Law Center

Shannon Laymon-Pecoraro is a Shareholder of Hook Law Center, P.C. practicing in the areas of elder law, special needs planning, estate and trust administration, estate planning, asset protection planning, financial planning, guardianships and conservatorships.

Ms. Laymon-Pecoraro is certified as an Elder Law Attorney (CELA) by The National Elder Law Foundation (NELF). Approved by the American Bar Association, the CELA certification is the legal industry’s “gold standard” for elder law and special needs practitioners. There are only about 500 CELA-certified attorneys nationwide.

Prior to joining the firm in 2012, Ms. Laymon-Pecoraro handled estate planning documents for members of the United States Department of the Army and has been involved in the legal representation of several large corporations.