- Parties - Applicable statutes. A. The district court shall have original jurisdiction to construe the provisions of any trust instrument; to determine the law applicable thereto; the powers, duties, and liability of trustee; the existence or nonexistence of facts affecting the administration of the trust estate; to require accounting by trustees; to surcharge trustee; and in its discretion to supervise the administration of trusts; and all actions hereunder are declared to be proceedings in rem. B. The venue of such actions shall be in the county where the trustees or any cotrustee resides. Upon obtaining jurisdiction the same shall not be divested by the removal of the trustee from the county where the action is commenced.
C. Actions hereunder may be brought by a trustee, beneficiary, or any person affected by the administration of the trust estate. If the action is predicated upon any act or obligation of any beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be a necessary party to the proceedings. The only necessary parties to such actions shall be those persons designated as beneficiaries by name or class in the instrument creating the trust and who have a vested interest in the trust which is the subject of the action, those persons currently serving as trustees of the trust, and any persons who may be actually receiving distributions from the trust estate at the time the action is filed. Contingent beneficiaries designated by name or class shall not be necessary parties. D. The provisions of the statutes governing civil procedure, commencement of action, process, process by publication, appointment of guardians ad litem, supersedeas and appeal, shall govern all actions and proceedings brought under provisions of this act. E. A court of competent jurisdiction may, for cause shown and upon notice to the beneficiaries, relieve a trustee from any or all of the duties and restrictions which would otherwise be placed upon the trustee by this act, or wholly or partly excuse a trustee who has acted honestly and reasonably from liability for violations of the provisions of this act. Added by Laws 1941, p. 255, § 23. Amended by Laws 1993, c. 345, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Laws 1995, c. 351, § 22, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cavett v. Peterson, 688 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1984).
· cites it 2× “00 was incurred in 1975 as costs of repair of the air conditioning system and the trustees sought instructions under 60 O.S. § 175.23(A) as to whether that expenditure was accountable to the corpus or income of the trust.”
Application of Goodwin, 597 P.2d 762 (Okla. 1979).
“OP ALA, Justice: This is an appeal from judgment rendered in a proceeding instituted under 60 O.S.1971 § 175.23 1 to construe the trust instrument that created a public housing authority presumably under the provisions of 63 O.”
State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ogden, 657 P.2d 142 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 3× “The pertinent part of the Uniform Trusts Act (60 O.S.1981, § 175.23) provides: “A. The district court shall have original jurisdiction to construe the provisions of any trust instrument; to determine the law applicable thereto: the powers, duties, and liability of trustee; the…”
Matter of Home-Stake Prod. Co., Etc., 598 P.2d 1193 (Okla. 1979).
“HARGRAVE, Justice: This equitable action was originally filed in the District Court of Tulsa County pursuant to 60 O.S.1971 § 175.23 on November 1, 1973, seeking court supervision of the administration and distribution of the assets of the Home-Stake Deferred Compensation Trust…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Warram, 285 P.2d 1034 (Okla. 1955).
“The petition prayed the court to construe the trust instrument pursuant to Title 60 O.S.1951 § 175.23 to determine the validity of the trust, the Bond Indenture, the powers, duties, liabilities' and rights of the trustees as to their previous and future actions and their…”
Harrison v. Claybrook, 372 P.2d 602 (Okla. 1962).
“60 O.S.1961 § 175.23 against The City of Wewoka, as defendant, to obtain an adjudication as to certain matters with reference to said Authority, which was admittedly created to assist said defendant city in obtaining industrial development under the Local Industrial Development…”
Hurst v. Kravis, 333 P.2d 314 (Okla. 1958).
“The minor contingent beneficiaries were not designated by name and were designated as a class and were not receiving any distribution from the trust and although they were parties to the action they were not necessary parties under the provisions of Title 60 O.S.1951 § 175.23,…”
Pipkin v. Pipkin, 393 P.2d 534 (Okla. 1964).
“Marshall calls attention to 60 O.S.1961 § 175.23, subsections A and B which provide in part, as follows: “A.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. 52 of Oklahoma Cnty. v. Oklahoma Indus. Auth., 646 P.2d 1276 (Okla. 1982).
· cites it 4× “DOOLIN, Justice: The issue for resolution is simply stated: do appellants (school districts) have the right to intervene as necessary and indispensable parties under either 60 O.S.1971, § 175.23(C) or 12 O.S.1971, § 236? Trial court ruled they did not and dismissed their…”
First Nat'l Bank of Enid v. Clark, 402 P.2d 248 (Okla. 1965).
· cites it 3× “We take note of two sections of the Oklahoma Trust Act, 60 O.S.1961, §§ 175.23 and 175.25. Of the five subsections of Sec.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 175.23(A) — 2 cases
Cavett v. Peterson, 688 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1984).
“00 was incurred in 1975 as costs of repair of the air conditioning system and the trustees sought instructions under 60 O.S. § 175.23(A) as to whether that expenditure was accountable to the corpus or income of the trust.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 60, § 175.23(C) — 4 cases
Cavett v. Peterson, 688 P.2d 52 (Okla. 1984).
“00 was incurred in 1975 as costs of repair of the air conditioning system and the trustees sought instructions under 60 O.S. § 175.23(A) as to whether that expenditure was accountable to the corpus or income of the trust.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. 52 of Oklahoma Cnty. v. Oklahoma Indus. Auth., 646 P.2d 1276 (Okla. 1982).
“DOOLIN, Justice: The issue for resolution is simply stated: do appellants (school districts) have the right to intervene as necessary and indispensable parties under either 60 O.S.1971, § 175.23(C) or 12 O.S.1971, § 236? Trial court ruled they did not and dismissed their…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.