Removing a trustee changes who controls the trust and may disrupt administration, increase expense, and override the settlor’s selected fiduciary. California courts therefore treat removal as a serious, fact-specific remedy.

The Short Answer

Yes. Probate Code section 15642 permits a beneficiary to petition for removal under section 17200. The decision remains largely within the court’s discretion, and a beneficiary should ordinarily show more than distrust, delay, or family tension.

Statutory Grounds for Removal

Section 15642 identifies grounds that include:

  • Breach of trust;
  • Insolvency or other unfitness to administer the trust;
  • Hostility or lack of cooperation among cotrustees that impairs administration;
  • Failure or refusal to act;
  • Excessive compensation;
  • Specified statutory disqualification circumstances;
  • Substantial inability to manage trust resources or properly perform the office;
  • Substantial inability to resist fraud or undue influence; and
  • Other good cause.

Not every mistake or disagreement requires removal. The court may consider the severity and duration of the conduct, whether it was corrected, the risk of repetition, the effect on trust administration, the cost of replacement, the availability of a qualified successor, and whether narrower relief would protect the trust.

Warning Signs That May Justify Investigation

Potential warning signs include:

  • Repeated refusal to provide required information or an accounting;
  • Personal use of trust assets or undisclosed related-party transactions;
  • Unexplained withdrawals, missing assets, or accounts that do not reconcile;
  • Failure to insure, preserve, maintain, or protect trust property;
  • A below-market sale without adequate valuation or conflict management;
  • Using distributions to reward cooperation or punish questions;
  • Extended failure to pay obligations, collect assets, file returns, or complete distributions;
  • Excessive or unexplained compensation and professional fees;
  • Incapacity, susceptibility to manipulation, or another condition affecting the ability to serve; or
  • Threatened transfer, concealment, or destruction of records.

A warning sign is not proof by itself. The strongest evidence connects the conduct to an operational consequence such as lost value, uninsured property, deadlock, missed deadlines, delayed distributions, tax penalties, or an inability to safeguard assets.

Hostility Alone May Be Insufficient

Family trusts frequently involve difficult relationships. Published decisions distinguish personal hostility from conflict that actually impairs administration.

In Estate of Gilmaker, removal was upheld where serious hostility combined with administrative failures. In Trolan v. Trolan, the Court of Appeal explained that hostility supports removal when it impairs administration and found insufficient evidence of impairment on the record before it.

The petition should therefore identify concrete consequences rather than relying only on accusations or poor communication.

A Breach Does Not Automatically Require Removal

Even though breach of trust is a statutory ground, the court may consider an accounting, instructions, repayment, compensation reduction, a bond, independent management, or limits on particular powers when those measures can restore proper administration.

The beneficiary should explain why narrower relief is insufficient, for example, repeated breaches, refusal to comply with prior orders, continuing conflicts, concealment, or ongoing access to assets at risk.

Fee Risk for a Bad-Faith Petition

Section 15642 permits the court to order a person seeking removal to bear some or all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, when the petition was filed in bad faith and removal would be contrary to the settlor’s intent.

Removal should be framed as protection of the trust, not punishment of the trustee or leverage in a distribution dispute.

Legal Authorities and Public Resources

  • California Probate Code §§ 15642 and 17200
  • Estate of Gilmaker (1962) 57 Cal.2d 627
  • Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939
  • Estate of Bixby (1961) 55 Cal.2d 819

Related practice areas: Family Law and Related Areas

This publication provides general information about California law. It is not legal advice and does not address any particular person’s circumstances. Reading this publication or contacting the firm does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.

Related Insights

← All Insights