McArthur v. McArthur, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
An arbitration provision is unenforceable against an objecting beneficiary
Rachal v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2013)
The Texas Supreme Court overcame concerns about the contractual nature of trusts by embracing the direct benefits theory of estoppel (essentially, the doctrine of conditional transfer) and applying all terms of the trust, including the arbitration provision, against the beneficiary because the beneficiary had clearly indicated acceptance of the terms and validity of the trust by accepting the benefits of the trust.
Decker v. Bookstaver, No. 4:09-CV-1361, 2010 WL 2132284, at 1-2 (E.D. Mo. May 26, 2010)
Case allowing arbitration of internal trust dispute based on incorporation by reference of an arbitration provision found in a side agreement
Municipality of San Juan v. Corporacion Para El Fomento Economico de la Ciudad Capital, 597 F. Supp. 2d 247, 248-49 (D. Puerto Rico 2008)
Case upholding terms of a pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration provision in the trust deed calling for arbitration under the ICDR Arbitration Rules.
Zisman v. Lesner, No. 6:08-cv-1448-Orl-31DAB, 2008 WL 4459029, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2008)
Case allowing used principles of equitable estoppel to overcome the technical absence of a “writing” in a trust-related dispute.
Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP v. San Juan Basin Royalty Trust, 249 S.W.3d 34, 36, 38 (Tex. App. 2007)
Case involving a post-dispute arbitration agreement concerning accountings and audits of the trust and invoking the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules.
Roehl v. Ritchie, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
The California Court of Appeal upholds an award arising out of trust arbitration.
New South Federal Savings Bank v. Anding, 414 F. Supp. 2d 636, 646-47 (S.D. Miss. 2005)
Case upholding mandatory arbitration agreement in trust deed rider invoking the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules.
Newbridge Acquisition I, L.L.C. v. Grupo Corvi, S.A. de D.V., No. 02 Civ. 9839(JSR), 2003 WL 42007, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2003)
Case involving an arbitration provision in a trust agreement invoking the ICC Arbitration Rules
Clark v. Clark, 57 P.3d 95 (Okla. 2002)
"The issue here is whether Plaintiff, as residual beneficiary of the Trust, is bound by the Agreement’s arbitration clause by virtue of Trustee having signed the Agreement. We find that he is not ..." (99).
In re Fellamnn, 412 Pa.Super. 577 = 604 A.2d 263 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1992)
"As a matter of public policy, issues of incompetency cannot be submitted to arbitration. To the extent that Paragraph 29 of the Fellman trust agreement provides for arbitration to determine the competency of the settlors, it cannot be enforced. Only a court of competent jurisdiction can adjudicate a person incompetent" (586).
Merill Lynch, Pierce, v. Eddings, 838 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.App. 1992)
Holding that nonsignatory settlor and trust beneficiaries could be compelled to arbitrate under account agreement between trustee and Merrill Lynch, which contained an arbitration clause, because agreement was the underlying basis for all the claims of the beneficiaries and there would have been no claims without the agreement.
Old cases (no more relevant)
Schoneberger v. Oelze, 96 P. 3d 1078 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004), superseded by statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14-10205.
Jacobovitz’ Will, 295 N.Y.S. 2d 527, 529 (Sur. Ct. Nassau Co. 1968), superseded by implication by In re Blumenkrantz, 824 N.Y.S. 2d 884, 887 (Sur. Ct. Nassau County 2006) which allowed arbitration of internal trust matters.
Meredith’s Estate, 266 N.W. 351, 354, 356 (Mich. 1936), superseded by implication by In re Nestorovski Estate, 769 N.W. 2d 720, 732 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) which concluded that an arbitration proceeding did not improperly oust the court of jurisdiction over probate concerns