NEW YORK — Families often create trusts to prevent inheritance fights, avoid probate and keep financial affairs private. But a first-of-its-kind study of hundreds of contested trust cases has uncovered a troubling pattern: the biggest legal battles often do not begin because heirs challenge what their parents wrote in the estate plan.
They begin because of:
what the trustee does afterward.
Researchers examining 640 contested trust petitions found that disputes over administration were far more common than attempts to invalidate the trust itself.
And one particular estate-planning choice repeatedly appeared in litigation:
appointing one child to control a trust that also benefits that child’s siblings or other relatives.
That arrangement can transform an ordinary inheritance into something much more emotionally explosive.
One sibling becomes:
Trustee
and
Beneficiary.
The others remain:
Beneficiaries.
Suddenly, one child may control:
The money
The records
The timing of distributions
The sale of family property
and
Communication with accountants and lawyers.
Researchers say that imbalance can magnify decades-old feelings of parental favoritism and sibling rivalry.
THE STUDY EXAMINED 640 CONTESTED TRUST CASES
Law professors:
David Horton of UC Davis
Reid Kress Weisbord of Rutgers
and
Christopher J. Ryan of Indiana University
reviewed thousands of civil court filings.
They identified:
640 contested trust petitions
that appeared on calendars in San Francisco Superior Court between:
2014 and 2020.
The research was published in the:
Washington University Law Review.
The authors describe it as the first large empirical study focused specifically on trust litigation.
That matters because trusts are usually private.
Unlike wills, which frequently pass through probate court, trust disputes can arise in different legal forums and are harder for researchers to track.
THE BIGGEST SURPRISE: MOST CASES WERE NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE TRUST WAS VALID
When people imagine inheritance fights, they often think of heirs claiming:
Mom was manipulated.
Dad did not understand what he signed.
The will was forged.
Someone exercised undue influence.
Those cases certainly exist.
But they were not the dominant problem in this dataset.
About:
75% of petitions
involved the trustee’s administration of the trust.
By comparison, only around:
23%
included a challenge to the trust document’s validity.
That means the biggest danger often appeared:
after the estate plan had already been created.
TRUSTEE MISCONDUCT WAS ALLEGED IN 74% OF CASES
Researchers found allegations involving trustee misconduct in approximately:
74% of petitions.
Those allegations can involve issues such as:
Failure to distribute assets
Improper investments
Unexplained withdrawals
Self-dealing
Selling property improperly
Withholding financial information
or
Paying excessive trustee compensation.
An allegation does not mean misconduct actually occurred.
Some trustees may be falsely accused.
But the frequency shows how central trustee behavior is to inheritance litigation.
ONE CHILD CONTROLLING SIBLINGS’ MONEY IS A MAJOR FLASHPOINT
One arrangement appeared repeatedly.
In approximately:
23% of all petitions,
one descendant was suing another descendant who was serving as both:
Trustee
and
Beneficiary.
Among cases specifically involving trust administration, that number increased to around:
28%.
Professor Christopher Ryan described this setup as an important:
“recipe for conflict.”
The reason is easy to understand.
Sibling rivalry can exist long before money enters the picture.
Then a parent gives one child formal authority over everyone else’s inheritance.
That changes the family power structure overnight.
IMAGINE THREE CHILDREN INHERITING THE SAME TRUST
Suppose a parent leaves:
$3 million
to three children.
Each child is supposed to benefit equally.
But the oldest child is appointed trustee.
That child may now control:
Investment accounts
Bank accounts
Real estate
and
Distribution timing.
The trustee might legitimately delay distributions because:
Taxes remain unpaid
A property has not sold
or
A business still needs to be valued.
But the other siblings may see something very different.
They may wonder:
Why are you holding my money?
Why did you sell the house?
Why did you choose that buyer?
Why are you taking a trustee fee?
Even perfectly legitimate decisions can become suspicious when trust is already weak.
DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS CAN MAKE THE IMBALANCE EVEN BIGGER
Some trusts give trustees significant discretion.
Instead of requiring automatic equal payments, the document may allow the trustee to decide:
When beneficiaries receive money
How much they receive
and
Whether certain expenses qualify for distributions.
That can be useful.
A parent might want flexibility if one beneficiary:
Has addiction problems
Has creditors
Is financially irresponsible
or
Has special needs.
But when the person exercising that discretion is also a sibling, the arrangement can become emotionally dangerous.
One child may effectively have the power to say:
yes
or
no
to another child’s access to family wealth.
THE REAL ESTATE PROBLEM CAN BE EVEN WORSE
Family homes are frequent sources of inheritance conflict.
Suppose three siblings inherit their parents’ house.
One becomes trustee.
That trustee decides to sell.
Now several questions can immediately arise.
Was the property:
Properly appraised?
Was it:
Listed publicly?
Was the sale price fair?
Did the trustee sell it to:
A friend
A relative
or
A company connected to the trustee?
Even a legitimate transaction can produce conflict if the process is not transparent.
That is why documentation matters so much.
ONE-THIRD OF CASES INVOLVED DEMANDS FOR ACCOUNTINGS
Requests for trust accountings appeared in about:
31% of petitions.
That finding exposes another major source of inheritance disputes:
information imbalance.
The trustee knows where the money is.
Other beneficiaries may not.
A beneficiary might know the deceased parent once owned:
Stocks
Bank accounts
Property
Businesses
or
Valuable personal assets.
But they may not know:
Current balances
What was sold
What expenses were paid
or
Where the money went.
That uncertainty can rapidly turn into suspicion.
BAD COMMUNICATION CAN LOOK LIKE BAD BEHAVIOR
Imagine a trustee delays distributions for six months.
There may be a legitimate reason.
Perhaps:
Estate taxes must be calculated.
A property sale is pending.
A lawsuit remains unresolved.
Or creditors still need to be paid.
But if the trustee says nothing, beneficiaries may assume:
The money is being hidden.
A simple explanation could potentially prevent months of escalating conflict.
This is why estate lawyers frequently emphasize communication almost as much as legal drafting.
RECORDKEEPING CAN PROTECT THE TRUSTEE TOO
Transparency does not only protect beneficiaries.
It also protects honest trustees.
If someone accuses a trustee of selling a property too cheaply, the trustee should ideally be able to produce:
An independent appraisal
Listing records
Competing offers
The sale contract
and
Closing documents.
If a beneficiary questions trust expenses, the trustee should be able to show:
Invoices
Bank statements
and
Receipts.
Good records can turn an emotional family accusation into a factual accounting question.
THE STUDY DOES NOT PROVE FAMILY TRUSTEES ARE BAD
This distinction is essential.
There is nothing automatically improper about naming a child as trustee.
In many families, it makes perfect sense.
One child may be:
Financially sophisticated
Responsible
Geographically closer
or
More familiar with the parents’ affairs.
A family trustee may also save money compared with hiring a professional fiduciary.
The study does not show that family trustees usually cause litigation.
It only shows that when trust litigation does occur, this power imbalance appears frequently.
THE STUDY LOOKED ONLY AT CASES THAT REACHED COURT
That limitation matters enormously.
Researchers did not analyze every trust in California.
They analyzed:
litigated trusts.
Millions of family trusts may be administered peacefully.
Therefore, it would be wrong to conclude:
“23% of family trusts end in sibling lawsuits.”
That is not what the data says.
Instead, the study shows that among cases already serious enough to reach court, sibling trustee-beneficiary conflicts appear often.
That makes the findings useful for identifying risk.
Not predicting how often lawsuits will occur.
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUSTS HAVE BECOME EXTREMELY POPULAR
Over the past several decades, revocable living trusts have increasingly replaced traditional wills as a major U.S. estate-planning tool.
They are popular partly because they can:
Avoid probate
Keep financial details private
Allow continuity during incapacity
and
Make asset management easier after death.
The trust creator—known as the:
settlor
or
grantor
typically manages the assets while alive.
After death or incapacity, a:
successor trustee
takes control.
That successor is where many disputes begin.
THE FEATURE THAT MAKES TRUSTS USEFUL CAN ALSO CREATE CONFLICT
A trust can continue for:
Months
Years
or even
Decades
after the original owner dies.
That flexibility is one of its greatest benefits.
But researchers found it can also be a major weakness.
A will may distribute property relatively quickly.
A trust may require ongoing decisions involving:
Investments
Rental properties
Businesses
Taxes
Beneficiary requests
and
Asset sales.
Every decision creates another opportunity for disagreement.
ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE LAWSUITS WERE LINKED TO ADMINISTRATION
The researchers described this as a paradox.
The ability of a successor trustee to continue managing property after death is supposed to be:
an advantage.
Yet that same long-running administrative relationship was the catalyst for roughly:
75% of the lawsuits
in their dataset.
In other words:
the trust solved the probate problem,
but sometimes created a trustee-beneficiary problem.
NO-CONTEST CLAUSES DID FAR LESS THAN MANY PEOPLE EXPECT
Estate planners sometimes include:
no-contest clauses.
These provisions are designed to discourage beneficiaries from bringing certain challenges.
The theory is simple.
If you challenge the estate plan and lose, you risk losing your inheritance.
That sounds like a powerful deterrent.
But the study found an unexpected result.
Around:
80% of litigated trusts
contained no-contest clauses.
Yet those clauses were invoked in only around:
1% of cases.
That suggests no-contest provisions may provide far less practical protection against trust litigation than many families assume.
WHY NO-CONTEST CLAUSES MAY NOT STOP TRUSTEE DISPUTES
One reason is that many lawsuits are not attempts to invalidate the trust.
They concern:
trust administration.
A beneficiary asking:
“Where is the money?”
or
“Why did you sell this asset?”
may not necessarily be challenging the trust document itself.
They may instead be challenging the trustee’s behavior.
Depending on state law and trust language, a no-contest clause may therefore offer little protection.
ARBITRATION ALSO PLAYED A TINY ROLE
Another supposedly powerful tool is:
mandatory arbitration.
Businesses commonly require disputes to be handled privately through arbitration rather than court.
Some estate planners have considered similar clauses in trusts.
But researchers found arbitration provisions in only around:
5% of the trusts
in their litigation sample.
And there was just:
one motion to compel arbitration.
That suggests arbitration has not yet become a major mechanism for resolving family trust disputes.
MEDIATION WAS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE
The strongest dispute-resolution finding involved:
mediation.
Researchers identified:
145 filings
that went through mediation.
Of those:
123 settled.
That equals roughly:
85%.
Among cases without mediation, the settlement rate was only around:
46%.
The researchers caution that this does not prove mediation caused the difference.
Families willing to mediate may already be more open to compromise.
But the gap is still striking.
WHY MEDIATION MAY WORK PARTICULARLY WELL IN FAMILY DISPUTES
Inheritance litigation is rarely just about money.
It can involve:
Decades-old resentment
Parental favoritism
Sibling rivalry
Caregiving disputes
and
Emotional attachment to property.
A court judge can decide legal rights.
But a judge cannot repair a family.
Mediation gives families more flexibility.
They might negotiate:
Who keeps the house
How property is divided
Whether the trustee resigns
How distributions occur
or
How trustee fees are handled.
That flexibility may explain why mediation can be particularly useful.
MONEY CAN TURN OLD EMOTIONAL WOUNDS INTO LEGAL CLAIMS
Parents sometimes assume their children will cooperate after they die.
But family relationships can change dramatically once substantial money is involved.
A sibling who felt ignored for years may view an unequal inheritance as final proof of favoritism.
A child who spent years caring for a parent may believe they deserve more.
Another sibling may disagree.
If one of those people becomes trustee, the emotional imbalance becomes even stronger.
The lawsuit may involve technical trust law.
But the conflict may have started decades earlier.
THE GREAT WEALTH TRANSFER COULD MAKE THIS MORE IMPORTANT
Americans are entering one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers in history.
Estimates suggest tens of trillions of dollars could pass from older generations to younger family members over coming decades.
That includes:
Homes
Investment accounts
Businesses
Retirement assets
and
Private investments.
More wealth means potentially larger inheritance disputes.
And rapidly rising housing and financial-asset values can transform what once looked like a modest estate into a multimillion-dollar one.
EVEN ORDINARY HOMES CAN CREATE MILLION-DOLLAR ESTATES
Estate-planning disputes are not only for billionaires.
A family may own:
A house worth $900,000
Retirement savings worth $600,000
and
Investments worth $300,000.
Suddenly the estate is worth:
$1.8 million.
Three children may be fighting over hundreds of thousands of dollars each.
That is enough money to make litigation economically tempting.
MOST AMERICANS STILL DO NOT HAVE A WILL
Another estate-planning study released in 2026 found only around:
26% of U.S. adults
reported having a valid will.
That was down from:
31% in 2025.
About:
14%
reported having a trust.
And approximately:
56% of adults
said they had no estate-planning documents at all.
That includes:
No will
No trust
No financial power of attorney
and
No medical power of attorney.
The numbers show the first problem for many households is not choosing the wrong trustee.
It is failing to make a plan at all.
DYING WITHOUT A PLAN CAN CREATE A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONFLICT
If someone dies without a valid will or trust, state:
intestacy laws
determine how property is distributed.
That may not match the deceased person’s wishes.
Unmarried partners can face particular difficulties.
Stepchildren may also receive different treatment from biological or adopted children.
Families may then spend months or years dealing with:
Probate
Property sales
Creditor claims
and
Inheritance disputes.
So avoiding estate planning because the subject feels uncomfortable can create even greater problems.
HAVING A TRUST IS NOT ENOUGH
The new research highlights an important misconception.
People sometimes think:
“I created a trust, so my estate planning is finished.”
But the legal document is only part of the plan.
Families also need to think carefully about:
Who will administer it
How much discretion they receive
How beneficiaries receive information
How conflicts are handled
and
Who replaces the trustee if something goes wrong.
Governance matters almost as much as drafting.
A PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEE CAN REDUCE SOME FAMILY CONFLICT
One possible solution is appointing an independent professional trustee.
That could include:
A trust company
Bank
Attorney
or
Professional fiduciary.
The advantage is neutrality.
A professional trustee does not share decades of sibling history.
They are also typically familiar with:
Accounting
Tax filings
Investments
and
Fiduciary obligations.
But professional trustees charge fees.
For smaller estates, those costs may be difficult to justify.
CO-TRUSTEES CAN ALSO HELP — OR MAKE THINGS WORSE
Parents sometimes appoint multiple children as:
co-trustees.
The theory is that no sibling controls everything.
But this can create another problem.
Important actions may require agreement.
If siblings already disagree, basic administration can grind to a halt.
They may fight over:
Investments
Property sales
Distributions
and
Legal advice.
So simply giving everyone equal control is not automatically the solution.
SOMETIMES THE BEST TRUSTEE IS THE LEAST EMOTIONAL PERSON
Estate planners increasingly encourage families to think beyond:
“Who is the oldest child?”
or
“Who lives closest?”
The better question may be:
Who can act neutrally under pressure?
A strong trustee needs to be able to:
Keep records
Communicate clearly
Follow legal obligations
and
Separate personal feelings from financial decisions.
Those skills may matter more than birth order.
COMMUNICATION BEFORE DEATH MAY PREVENT CONFLICT AFTERWARD
Another recurring recommendation is:
talk to heirs before the estate is distributed.
Parents do not necessarily need to disclose every dollar.
But explaining the structure can reduce surprises.
For example:
Why was one child chosen as trustee?
Why is one beneficiary receiving assets in trust instead of outright?
Why is the family home being sold rather than inherited jointly?
Why are distributions unequal?
A short explanation today can prevent beneficiaries from inventing their own explanation later.
UNEQUAL INHERITANCES REQUIRE EXTRA CARE
Parents sometimes have legitimate reasons for leaving unequal amounts.
One child may have:
Special needs.
Another may already have received substantial financial help.
One may have spent years providing unpaid caregiving.
Another may be financially successful.
Those decisions may be completely reasonable.
But if they are unexplained, siblings may interpret them as:
love rankings.
Estate lawyers often recommend documenting the reasoning separately, sometimes through a:
letter of wishes
or family discussion.
ESTATE PLANS SHOULD BE UPDATED
A trust created 20 years ago may no longer reflect reality.
Families change.
People:
Divorce
Remarry
Have children
Become estranged
Develop illnesses
or
Build businesses.
Assets also change.
An estate that once consisted mostly of a house may later include:
Digital assets
Cryptocurrency
Private-company shares
and
International property.
Estate plans should therefore be reviewed periodically and after major life events.
DIGITAL ASSETS ARE CREATING NEW ESTATE PROBLEMS
Modern estates increasingly include assets that did not exist when many older trusts were drafted.
Families may need to deal with:
Cryptocurrency wallets
Online investment accounts
Cloud storage
Social-media accounts
and
Digital intellectual property.
A beneficiary may know the asset exists but have no password or private key.
Without proper planning, valuable digital property can become effectively inaccessible.
That makes asset inventories increasingly important.
BUSINESS OWNERS FACE EVEN BIGGER RISKS
A family business can create particularly severe inheritance conflict.
Suppose one child works inside the company.
Two siblings do not.
The parent leaves ownership equally among all three.
The operating child may believe:
“I built this business.”
The others may say:
“We own one-third each.”
Now the family must decide:
Who controls management?
Who receives dividends?
Can shares be sold?
What is the company worth?
Those disagreements can destroy both:
the family
and
the business.
Business succession therefore requires planning well beyond a simple will.
THE PHILIPPINES HAS A DIFFERENT SUCCESSION SYSTEM
For Filipino families, there is an important legal distinction.
Philippine inheritance law does not operate exactly like the American system discussed in this study.
Under the Philippine Civil Code, certain:
compulsory heirs
are legally entitled to reserved portions of an estate called:
legitimes.
A person generally cannot freely leave the entire estate to anyone they choose if compulsory heirs exist.
Wills also generally require probate before they can take effect.
So Filipino estate planning should not simply copy U.S. trust strategies.
Local succession, tax and property laws matter.
BUT THE FAMILY LESSON TRANSLATES ACROSS BORDERS
The legal structures may differ.
The emotional risks do not.
Families everywhere can argue about:
Who controls property
Whether distributions were fair
Why one sibling received more
and
Whether the person administering the estate can be trusted.
That is why the study’s central lesson applies well beyond California.
Estate planning is not only about deciding:
who gets what.
It is also about deciding:
who controls what happens next.
THE BIGGER STORY: THE DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE WHAT STARTS THE FAMILY WAR
The most revealing finding from the 640 contested trust cases is that inheritance disputes often begin after the estate plan has already done exactly what it was designed to do.
The trust exists.
The assets are inside it.
A successor trustee takes control.
And then the problems begin.
Approximately:
75% of disputes involved administration.
Trustee misconduct was alleged in:
74%.
Accountings were requested in almost:
one-third.
And in nearly:
one-quarter of all petitions,
one descendant was suing another descendant who also served as trustee and beneficiary.
That does not mean parents should never appoint a child.
Nor does it mean trusts are inherently dangerous.
What it does mean is that estate planning should not end with:
“Who inherits my money?”
Families also need to ask:
Who will control it?
Who will explain the decisions?
Who will keep the records?
And what happens when the beneficiaries no longer trust the person in charge?
Because once a parent is gone, there may be nobody left with enough authority—or enough emotional influence—to bring the family back together.
A trust can keep an estate out of probate court, but if the wrong governance structure is built into it, the trust itself may simply move the family fight into a different courtroom.
