130.625 UTC
706. Removal of trustee.
(1) The settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request that a court remove a
trustee, or a trustee may be removed by a court on its own motion.
(2) A court may
remove a trustee if the court finds:
(a) The trustee
has committed a serious breach of trust;
(b) Lack of
cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs the administration of the
trust;
(c) Removal of
the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries because the trustee
is unfit or unwilling, or has persistently failed to administer the trust
effectively; or
(d) Removal of
the trustee best serves the interests of all of the beneficiaries and:
(A) There has
been a substantial change of circumstances or removal has been requested by all
of the qualified beneficiaries;
(B) A suitable
cotrustee or successor trustee is available; and
(C) The trustee
fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that removal is
inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust.
(3) Pending a
final decision on a request to remove a trustee, or in lieu of or in addition
to removing a trustee, the court may order such appropriate relief under ORS
130.800 (2) as may be necessary to protect the trust property or the interests
of the beneficiaries. [2005 c.348 §55; 2013 c.529 §14]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case:
Lewis v. Worley, 507 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
Lewis v. Worley, 507 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 10× “” The court further ruled that, under ORS 130.625, peti- tioner was authorized, “even as a beneficiary of the trust, to petition for removal or for other relief as set forth in ORS 130.”
Briggs v. Lamvik, 255 P.3d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” See ORS 130.625. 10 Accordingly, the resolution of the factual dispute regarding Orville’s intent with respect to the accounts — which, in turn, will resolve whether defendant owns the accounts — is material to the determination of whether defendant should be removed as…”
Carter v. Smith, 346 Or. App. 5 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Carter read aloud ORS 130.625(1), which provides that “the settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request that a court remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by a court on its own motion”; argued that the court should remove Smith; and concluded by stating that…”
Dombrowsky & Beaumont, 350 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “Because we agree with Beaumont that the trust instrument is ambiguous and thus the trial court may find fewer breaches of trust on remand, we reverse.”
Carter v. Smith, 346 Or. App. 5 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Carter read aloud ORS 130.625(1), which provides that “the settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request that a court remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by a court on its own motion”; argued that the court should remove Smith; and concluded by stating that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 130.625(1) — 3 cases
Lewis v. Worley, 507 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” The court further ruled that, under ORS 130.625, peti- tioner was authorized, “even as a beneficiary of the trust, to petition for removal or for other relief as set forth in ORS 130.”
Carter v. Smith, 346 Or. App. 5 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Carter read aloud ORS 130.625(1), which provides that “the settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request that a court remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by a court on its own motion”; argued that the court should remove Smith; and concluded by stating that…”
Carter v. Smith, 346 Or. App. 5 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” Carter read aloud ORS 130.625(1), which provides that “the settlor, a cotrustee or a beneficiary may request that a court remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by a court on its own motion”; argued that the court should remove Smith; and concluded by stating that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 130.625(2) — 2 cases
Lewis v. Worley, 507 P.3d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“” The court further ruled that, under ORS 130.625, peti- tioner was authorized, “even as a beneficiary of the trust, to petition for removal or for other relief as set forth in ORS 130.”
Dombrowsky & Beaumont, 350 Or. App. 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“Because we agree with Beaumont that the trust instrument is ambiguous and thus the trial court may find fewer breaches of trust on remand, we reverse.”
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.