Does a trustee have a duty to the beneficiary or to the purpose of the trust?

These are often in alignment, and the trustee doesn’t have to choose one over the other. But sometimes they are in conflict, and that’s where issues arise.

This is not just an abstract legal concept; it has consequences in the real world. A trustee who does not live up to his or her duty under the law can get in legal trouble, as one trustee found out in last year’s South Carolina Court of Appeals case Baskin v. Walkup (2025) (find it here). The trustee was not only removed from his role but was found in contempt and ordered to pay over $100,000 in legal fees.

Before jumping into the details of the case, which should be illuminating to trustees in South Carolina, let’s see what state statute says.

Purpose or Beneficiaries: What South Carolina Law Says

Under South Carolina Code:

“Upon acceptance of a trusteeship, the trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and in the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with this article.” – Section 62-7-801

“A trustee shall administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries.” – Section 62-7-802(a)

“The duty of a trustee to act in good faith and in accordance with the purpose of the trust” cannot be overridden by any provision in the trust. – Section 62-7-105(b)(2)

The purpose of a trust may be to preserve family wealth and/or land; to provide for beneficiaries during their lifetimes; to fund charitable institutions; and so on. It’s advisable for the grantor/settlor of a trust to explicitly state the purpose of the trust so there’s no confusion as to its purpose. South Carolina Code Section 67-7-105(b)(3) requires that a trust “have a purpose that is lawful and possible to achieve.” It cannot be illegal or violate public policy.

A trustee must prioritize the goals of the trust and the wishes of the grantor/settlor rather than act in his or her own best interest. The trustee must also serve the beneficiaries while being careful not to go against the trust’s purpose by agreeing to a beneficiary’s requests for more funds – a common occurrence, in our experience.

But what if not making more disbursements to the beneficiary actually violates the trustee’s duty to the trust? That brings us to Baskin v. Walkup.

Baskin v. Walkup (2025) – The Background

Eldridge Baskin died in 1990, leaving a house on Summerlea Drive and its contents to his only child, then-43-year-old daughter Jane E. Baskin (Baskin) who had certain needs due to cerebral palsy.

The rest of his estate was put in a trust for Baskin’s benefit for the rest of her life. Under the terms of his will, the trust was “for the sole benefit of my daughter, Jane E. Baskin, the sole purpose of the trust created hereunder being to provide for the well[-]being of Jane E. Baskin so long as she shall live.”

Family friend William B. Walkup was named trustee, and under the terms of the trust he had broad powers to manage and invest the trust’s assets and “complete and absolute discretion” to make disbursements to Baskin.

The trust started with over $130,000 in liquid assets and a rental home worth over $40,000. Over the years, the trust’s value grew to over $500,000 under Walkup’s management, according to later testimony.

Over the years, too, the relationship between Baskin and Walkup deteriorated to the point where Baskin filed an action seeking removal of Walkup as trustee and an accounting in July 2020.

The Trial – Disagreements Over Trust Funds

The trial began in January 2021.

Baskin testified that in June 2015, against her will, Walkup moved her out of the family home she’d lived in since 1959 and into an apartment complex owned by Walkup. Walkup said that Baskin had begun falling at her home and that her being closer meant he and his daughter could (and did) provide additional support. Baskin said that the apartment was not accessible, as she was in a wheelchair at that time.

Baskin stated that she wanted to move back to the Summerlea Drive house, but Walkup wanted to move her to a nursing home. Baskin refused, and she began renovations on the house. Walkup said that expenses at the house were $14,400 per month, which would deplete the trust in three years. Expenses at the nursing home, by comparison, could be as low as $6,600 per month, depending on how much care Baskin needed.

In August 2017, Walkup sent Baskin a letter stating that the trust would stop paying insurance and electrical bills starting in October. The following May, through her attorney, Alex Weatherly, Baskin “demanded” $6,500 per month from the trust. Baskin also testified that the trust paid for just 40 hours of caregiving a week, but she needed ten hours per day. Baskin’s long-time friend Michele Moseley provided caregiving and was named/ Baskin’s POA in 2017.

The trial paused when a temporary settlement agreement was reached in which the parties agreed:

• Walkup would remain the trustee responsible for investing and tax reporting
• Baskin’s attorney Alex Weatherly would be appointed special trustee for Baskin’s care, and
• Baskin would move to the Summerlea Drive house by February 1, 2021

(A handful of other legal actions followed, but they are not pertinent to this discussion; read the full opinion for details.)

The trial resumed over a year later, in August 2022. The court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), whose role it was to represent Baskin’s best interests, testified that Baskin needed more funds from the trust for professional care and to fix up the Summerlea Drive house. She also testified that Baskin did not seem to be under undue influence from Moseley.

A trust and estate attorney, on behalf of Walkup, said it was more important for a trustee to follow the testator’s instructions than to prioritize good relations with the beneficiary. He also stated that Walkup’s financial management of the trust, which had grown considerably under his care, was “remarkable.”

Walkup, for his part, had previously testified that he was 80 years old and had known Baskin since she was 11 months old, and he agreed to be trustee because he thought he could help. He stated that the relationship with Baskin deteriorated once Moseley became more involved, which Moseley denied.

The Court Removed Walkup as Trustee

The probate court found in favor of Baskin, ordering Walkup to be removed as trustee. This decision was based on (quoting the appeals court’s opinion):

• “best serving Baskin;
• a substantial change in circumstances in the relationship between Walkup and Baskin, which had “deteriorated to a toxic level of litigation”; and
• requested by Baskin, best serving the trust, and not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust.”

A suitable trustee was immediately available, noted the court, namely Weatherly, who had already been serving as special trustee.

Walkup was not only removed as trustee but was found in contempt and in breach of the temporary settlement agreement. He was ordered to pay Baskin’s attorney’s fees of $3,500 and $129,625.80.

This Appeal Followed

The appeals court affirmed. It found that the probate court made the correct decision based on Baskin’s best interests and the deterioration of the relationship between Walkup and Baskin.

South Carolina courts have authority under SC Code Section 62-7-706 to remove a trustee on certain grounds, a topic covered in a previous blog. Here, the appeals court cites subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) specifically:

(3) because of the unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries; or

(4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and a suitable cotrustee or successor trustee is available”

It also quotes the following comments on this section:

“A trustee may be removed for untoward action, such as for a serious breach of trust, but the section is not so limited. A trustee may also be removed under a variety of circumstances in which the court concludes that the trustee is not best serving the interests of the beneficiaries. The term ‘interests of the beneficiaries’ means the beneficial interests as provided in the terms of the trust, not as defined by the beneficiaries.”

And:

“Friction between the trustee and beneficiaries is ordinarily not a basis for removal. However, removal might be justified if communications breakdown is caused by the trustee or appears to be incurable.”

While Walkup’s financial expertise was “apparent,” the appeals court found that “the record was replete with evidence that long-term growth rather than Baskin’s well-being was Walkup’s primary concern.” Since that objective went against the stated purpose of the trust of caring for Baskin, and the trustee’s primary duty is to carry out that purpose, Walkup was removed as trustee.

Takeaway for Trustees – Beware

Whether or not Walkup genuinely believed he was prioritizing Baskin’s well-being or was more concerned with getting great returns on the trust’s investments, this is a bad outcome for him and could be bad for trustees in future cases. We’ve previously covered another case, IN RE: Deborah Dereede Living Trust v. Karp (2019), in which a trustee was found personally liable by the same court.

These decisions are a good reminder that individual trustees put themselves at risk for what is often a thankless and low-paying job. It’s imperative that trustees understand the purpose of the trust and serve the beneficiaries’ interests in alignment with that purpose.

Get Help with Trusts and Trustee Issues

If you need help drafting, revising, or revoking a trust, or have issues with a trustee and/or beneficiary, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell at the Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem has over 30 years of experience practicing in South Carolina, and he and his team help individuals and families create personalized wills, trusts, and comprehensive estate plans tailored to their unique circumstances. Gem is a creative problem solver who can help you fix problems, protect your interests, and avoid mistakes in the first place.

Call Gem and his team, with offices in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC, at (843) 284-1021 to schedule your free initial consultation today.