As we progress into 2026, some 2025 Nebraska appellate decisions provide a valuable roadmap for how corporate trustee conduct is evaluated and some possible pitfalls. The following cases highlight good practices for corporate trustees, including documentation, accounting, fee arrangements and oversight.

1. Make Agreements Clear and Document Authority

In Morris v. Dall, 320 Neb. 122 (2025), a trust beneficiary sued her sister and successor trustee to their parents’ trust for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty, based upon their parents’ alleged oral promise to pay for renovations of real property owned by the Trust. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of all of the claims. The Morris case demonstrates that informal or oral arrangements are a recipe for disputes. Although the Supreme Court held that alleged oral promises regarding reimbursement for property renovations were not enforceable because the claimed agreement lacked definite terms and clear benefit to the trust, there may be increased risk for a corporate trustee versus an individual trustee. Namely, a corporate trustee may be — fairly or not — held to a higher standard, in terms of evaluating the existence of any agreements when taking over as successor trustee and ensuring any agreements are either clearly defined in writing or terminated.

Therefore, even if you are not personally involved in the arrangement, corporate fiduciaries should:

• • Reduce all commitments involving trust property to writing;
  • Clearly communicate with beneficiaries about approval procedures for work concerning trust property; and
  • Document any authorized expenditures for the trust and under what authority or agreement those expenditures are made.

2. Provide and Maintain Adequate Accountings

The Morris case also involved a claim regarding a failure to account. The Nebraska Supreme Court found that, even though the successor individual trustee did not provide formal and regular accountings in response to a beneficiary’s request, she did provide an inventory of assets and regular “Trustee Reports” and kept the beneficiaries up-to-date on her actions. 

Based upon this, corporate trustees should:

• • Maintain independent trust records, as contemporaneous as possible;
  • Provide annual accountings and additional disclosures as required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 303878;
  • Keep clear documentation of communications, decisions and authority for disbursements; and
  • Understand trust terms for disbursements — e.g., education expenses, gifts, support/maintenance.

3. Ensure Fee Agreements Are Clear and Authorized

An unpublished Nebraska Court of Appeals case discusses an attorney fee arrangement — and held that a modification to the original agreement was invalid because a majority of the trustees did not agree to that fee agreement. In re Estate of Meyers, 2025 WL 1872057 (Jul. 8, 2025). The court explained that the Uniform Trust Code requires agreement of the “majority of the trustees” for a contract to be enforceable against the trust. Here, there were two trustees. Only one trustee agreed to the attorneys’ fee modification; not a majority. Another issue was that the fee arrangement was originally an oral agreement, without being memorialized in writing.

Thus, corporate trustees should be careful with professional engagements, such as for attorneys and others, to be sure the fees can be paid from the trust itself. Also, the Uniform Trust Code addresses a corporate trustee’s compensation at Nebraska Revised Statute section 30-3864. A trustee is entitled to compensation as dictated by the trust or, if the trust does not specify compensation or if the terms are unreasonable, the trustee is entitled to “compensation that is reasonable under the circumstances.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3864. Corporate trustees should also communicate fee schedules (or changes thereto) to the beneficiaries. And, accountings and other reports should reflect the fees paid so that beneficiaries can understand the fees.

Therefore, corporate trustees should ensure:

• • Professional engagements that will be paid from the trust are supported by written agreements, approved as per trust provisions and the Uniform Trust Code; and 
  • Fee schedules are disclosed and consistently applied.

4. Standards for Evaluating Expenditures from Trust Assets

In re Masek Family Trust, 318 Neb. 268 (2025) involved multi-year and multi-layered litigation between family members, some of whom were acting as co-trustees. Part of the allegations in the dispute involved breaches of trust due to payments made out of the trust. Ultimately, the appellate court agreed that a majority, but not all, of the transactions did constitute a breach of trust because the payments violated the terms of the trust that dictated what types of payments were allowed. The Court made it clear that the breach of trust analysis “requires us to isolate and examine each individual expenditure … to determine whether each was a breach of trust resulting in loss to the trust.” Id. at 298. It was a very fact-intensive analysis, relying on the trust terms and significant evidence from the parties about the payments and their use (whether authorized or not). The Court determined that some spending, like living expenses and required tax payments, met the standards for payments in the trust. Other expenditures were improper because of the grantor-trustee’s lack of capacity, the failure to meet the maintenance/support standard in the trust, benefits to caregiver family members and assets transferred without a clear purpose (such as a foreign real estate transaction).

The court’s analysis in Masek provides some guide points for approving expenditures, including:

• • Identifying the trust provision authorizing the distribution;
  • Documenting why the expenditure fits the standard or authorization from the trust (e.g., why it is “necessary support”);
  • Assessing any concerns about a beneficiary’s capacity when they are exercising personal discretion;
  • Evaluating whether the expenditure benefits the correct person; and
  • Avoiding conflicts of interest by ensuring no beneficiary receives preferential treatment, unless dictated by the trust terms.

5. Co-Trustees and Family Control Situations

In Masek, one of the issues with payments was that one of the children and their spouse exercised control over the elderly grantor/trustee with diminished capacity, leading to mismanagement and improper expenditures, including undocumented “in-home care” payments, large transfers to family members and a foreign real estate transaction. Even though some expenditures could have been permissible under the trust’s standards (e.g., “care, maintenance, comfort and enjoyment”), the evidence showed that the trustee lacked capacity to deem them advisable, and the sibling’s control amounted to participation in breach of trust.

Although a corporate trustee was not involved in the matter, it does raise issues of concern and consideration for corporate trustees. These issues include:

• • Do your best to monitor the capacity of co-trustees, and understand the terms of the trust which may relate to capacity;
  • Determine whether or when to intervene if you are cognizant of capacity issues or undue influence issues with a grantor or a beneficiary;
  • Document how expenditures satisfy the trust’s purposes, to the extent possible; and
  • Be careful in how decisions or responsibilities are delegated to others, and understand what can actually be delegated.

If you are serving as a co-trustee alongside family co-trustees, passive reliance is not adequate. Certain duties remain active and nondelegable.

Tips for 2026 and Beyond

The message to corporate trustees from these cases includes the following tips:

• Document what you can: agreements, approvals, trust language understanding and fiduciary decisions.
• Provide regular and transparent accountings, with the language pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3894.
• Ensure fee arrangements are in writing and properly communicated.
• Maintain active oversight, especially when family dynamics are involved.
• Evaluate expenditures against trust terms and beneficiary capacity.

Implementing these practices not only reduces litigation risk, but also protects beneficiaries, trust assets and your professional reputation.