Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate
Co-Trustees in Pennsylvania: When Disagreement Stops Trust Administration
A Pennsylvania trust that names two co-trustees requires both to act jointly on most decisions under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703. When co-trustees disagree, the trust does not split the difference: it stops. Distributions do not go out. Investment decisions do not get made. Properties sit unmanaged. The beneficiaries bear the cost of a deadlock.
Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A. represents co-trustees, successor trustees, and beneficiaries in Allegheny County Orphans’ Court trust administration disputes throughout Western Pennsylvania. Co-trustee conflicts are among the most common trust litigation matters we handle, and they require a different approach than misconduct cases because both parties are often acting in good faith.
Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A. · Pittsburgh, PA 15218 · Serving Allegheny County and Western Pennsylvania.
Co-trustee structures fail not because someone does something wrong, but because two people who both care about the trust can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about what the trust requires. Pennsylvania law does not resolve that disagreement by declaring one trustee right. It requires both to act together, and when they cannot, the trust administration stops until someone or something breaks the deadlock. That someone is usually the Allegheny County Orphans’ Court.
Illustrative example: Two siblings served as co-trustees of their father’s revocable trust after his death. The trust held a commercial property generating significant amountsper month in rent and a portfolio of investment accounts. The sister wanted to sell the commercial property and distribute the proceeds. The brother wanted to hold it for income. Neither would move on anything while the property dispute was unresolved. The investment accounts sat in cash for eleven months while the co-trustees negotiated through attorneys. The beneficiaries — the siblings’ adult children — received nothing during that period. The rental income accumulated in the trust account. When the matter came to Orphans Court the judge authorized the sale over the brother’s objection under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703 and ordered a partial distribution to the beneficiaries pending final accounting. The eleven months of deadlock cost the estate approximately significant amountsin legal fees and lost investment returns. The trust document had no tiebreaker provision.
Which of these is closest to what you are dealing with?
I am a co-trustee and the other trustee is blocking a distribution.
A deadlock that prevents a required distribution is a breach of the duty to administer. The court can authorize the distribution over the other trustee’s objection or remove the blocking trustee.
I am a co-trustee and we cannot agree on investments.
Investment disagreements between co-trustees with equal authority stop decisions from being made. A structured negotiation or court-appointed tiebreaker can break the impasse without full litigation.
I am a beneficiary and distributions have stopped.
A beneficiary does not have to wait indefinitely for co-trustees to resolve their disagreement. The court can compel action, appoint a special trustee, or remove both and appoint a successor.
The other co-trustee has stopped communicating.
A co-trustee who goes silent is not administering the trust. Communication breakdown is grounds for removal under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7766 when it substantially impairs administration.
I want to step down as co-trustee.
A co-trustee can resign by written notice under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7737. Renunciation is voluntary and resolves the deadlock immediately if you are willing to exit.
The trust document names no tiebreaker.
Most co-trustee deadlocks exist because the trust was drafted without a tiebreaker mechanism. Pennsylvania law defaults to unanimous consent for two co-trustees. Without a tiebreaker the court becomes the tiebreaker.
You do not have to have it figured out before you call.
Co-trustees who cannot agree create the same practical problem as a trustee who refuses to act. The trust stops distributing. Beneficiaries wait. Beneficiaries who need those distributions for mortgage payments, medical bills, or tuition wait. The trust has the money. The deadlock prevents access. The deadlock requires resolution.
If you are a co-trustee in a dispute or a beneficiary affected by co-trustee disagreement, call 412-351-4422 or schedule a consultation.
When Co-Trustees Must Act Together in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania requires two co-trustees to agree on all substantive decisions unless the trust document says otherwise.
Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trust Code at 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703 requires co-trustees to act by majority decision when there are three or more, but when there are only two co-trustees, both must agree. There is no majority. A trust instrument can modify this default rule: it can give one co-trustee authority to act alone on certain decisions, or require unanimous consent only for specified transactions. Whether a particular decision requires joint action depends on what the trust document says and what the default rules supply where it is silent.
Joint action is required for investment decisions, distribution decisions, asset sales, hiring and firing advisors, and most administrative acts that affect the trust estate or its beneficiaries. Ministerial acts (routine bookkeeping, recordkeeping, tax return preparation) may be delegated to one co-trustee without the other’s involvement. The line between ministerial and substantive is not always clear, and disputes often begin at that boundary.
What Co-Trustees Cannot Agree On
The most common co-trustee disputes involve four categories. Investment philosophy: one co-trustee wants to preserve principal through conservative fixed-income holdings, the other believes the trust’s long-term purpose requires growth-oriented allocation. Distribution standards: where the trust gives discretion to distribute for health, education, maintenance, and support, co-trustees often read that standard differently (one applies it broadly, the other narrowly). Asset disposition: whether to sell the family business, the vacation property, or the investment portfolio, and at what price and on what timeline. Professional relationships: which investment advisors, accountants, or attorneys to retain, and whether to remove professionals already in place.
None of these disputes involve wrongdoing. Each co-trustee may be acting in what they genuinely believe is the best interest of the beneficiaries. The trust administration stops anyway. Beneficiaries who are waiting for distributions do not receive them because two trustees with equal authority cannot reach agreement. The trust document created the deadlock by naming co-trustees without providing a tiebreaker mechanism.
When Co-Trustees Disagree in Good Faith
Good faith disagreement is not a defense to deadlock. Pennsylvania law does not excuse the failure to administer a trust because the co-trustees had principled reasons for their positions. The trustee’s duty under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7772 requires impartial administration for the benefit of all beneficiaries. When co-trustees cannot agree, that duty is not being performed regardless of why they cannot agree.
Good-faith deadlock produces the same consequence as bad-faith obstruction. A beneficiary entitled to a distribution under the trust terms does not receive it. An investment decision that should have been made months ago has not been made. A property that should have been sold sits vacant and uninsured. The beneficiaries absorb the cost of the trustees’ disagreement in the form of delayed distributions, missed opportunities, and deteriorating assets.
Good faith matters in one important respect: it affects the remedy. A co-trustee who has acted in good faith is less likely to face surcharge liability than one who has obstructed administration for self-interested reasons. But good faith does not prevent removal. Under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7766, Orphans’ Court can remove a co-trustee when lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs trust administration, regardless of which trustee bears more fault for the impasse.
The Renunciation Option: When One Co-Trustee Steps Aside
A co-trustee who no longer wishes to serve can renounce the position. Under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7737, a trustee may resign by giving written notice to the remaining co-trustee or the beneficiaries. Once renounced, the remaining co-trustee has sole authority to administer the trust unless the trust document requires a successor to be appointed. Renunciation is voluntary and cannot be compelled. If neither co-trustee is willing to step aside and both are unwilling to reach agreement, the path leads to Orphans’ Court.
Renunciation is the simplest resolution when one co-trustee is willing to exit. It avoids litigation costs, preserves relationships, and allows trust administration to resume immediately. Whether renunciation is appropriate depends on the circumstances of the dispute and whether the remaining co-trustee can administer the trust competently and impartially. A co-trustee who renounces under pressure from the other party, or in circumstances suggesting coercion, may have grounds to challenge the renunciation later.
Court Intervention When Co-Trustees Deadlock
When informal resolution fails and neither co-trustee will renounce, Allegheny County Orphans’ Court has jurisdiction to resolve co-trustee disputes under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trust Code. The court can authorize a specific action over one co-trustee’s objection. It can appoint a special co-trustee with tiebreaker authority. Or it can remove one or both and appoint a successor. The standard for court intervention is whether the deadlock substantially impairs trust administration and whether continued co-trustee conflict serves the beneficiaries’ interests.
Court intervention is time-consuming and expensive relative to private resolution. A petition to Orphans’ Court requires notice to all interested parties, a hearing, and a judicial determination. In urgent situations (where a distribution is overdue and a beneficiary faces financial hardship, or where an asset is deteriorating and immediate sale is necessary), emergency relief is available but requires a showing of irreparable harm. The availability of court intervention is the reason why professional co-trustees and co-trustee tiebreaker provisions are recommended at the trust drafting stage.
Trustee Removal for Lack of Cooperation
Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trust Code at 20 Pa.C.S. § 7766 provides four grounds for trustee removal. One of them is specifically directed at co-trustee situations: lack of cooperation among co-trustees that substantially impairs trust administration. This ground does not require proof of misconduct, self-dealing, or breach of fiduciary duty. It requires proof that the co-trustees cannot work together and that the inability to work together is harming the trust.
Removal under the cooperation ground typically results in the removal of one co-trustee rather than both. The court looks at which trustee is primarily responsible for the impasse, which trustee has acted more consistently with the trust’s purposes, and which trustee the beneficiaries are more aligned with. A successor trustee must be available and suitable before removal is ordered. For a complete analysis of the removal standard and process, see our page on trustee removal in Pennsylvania.
When to Consult an Attorney About Co-Trustee Conflict
The time to address co-trustee conflict is before it becomes litigation. An attorney can often facilitate a resolution through structured negotiation, help one co-trustee understand the legal consequences of continued obstruction, or draft a co-trustee agreement that establishes a tiebreaker mechanism going forward. If informal resolution is not possible, early court intervention is less costly than protracted dispute.
Call if any of the following apply: You are a co-trustee. The other co-trustee will not agree to distributions the trust requires. You are a beneficiary. Trust distributions have stopped because co-trustees cannot agree. You are a co-trustee. You believe the other co-trustee is using the joint-action requirement to obstruct legitimate administration. You are considering renouncing your co-trustee position and want to understand the consequences before doing so. The analysis of whether to pursue court intervention, negotiate a private resolution, or seek the other co-trustee’s removal depends on the specific trust document, the nature of the disagreement, and the financial consequences of continued deadlock.
If you were recently named co-trustee with a family member or friend and the relationship has created complications rather than the intended checks and balances, that situation is manageable. It is also common. Allegheny County Orphans’ Court sees co-trustee disputes regularly and has the authority to restructure the trustee arrangement when the original structure has failed.
Frequently Asked Questions About Co-Trustees in Pennsylvania (FAQ)
What happens when co-trustees in Pennsylvania cannot agree?
When two co-trustees cannot agree on a decision that requires joint action under 20 Pa.C.S. § 7703, the trust administration stops on that issue. Neither co-trustee can act unilaterally. The options are informal resolution, renunciation by one co-trustee, or petition to Allegheny County Orphans’ Court for judicial resolution.
Can one co-trustee be removed for not cooperating?
Yes. Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trust Code at 20 Pa.C.S. § 7766 provides for trustee removal when lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs trust administration. Misconduct is not required. The standard is whether the impasse is harming the trust and its beneficiaries.
Does a co-trustee have to agree to every decision?
It depends on what the trust document says and what the decision involves. Substantive decisions (investments, distributions, asset sales) typically require joint action when there are two co-trustees. Ministerial acts may be delegated to one. The trust instrument can modify these defaults by giving one co-trustee authority to act alone in specified circumstances.
Can a co-trustee resign?
Yes. A co-trustee can renounce the position in writing. Once effective, the remaining co-trustee has sole authority unless the trust requires appointment of a successor. Renunciation cannot be compelled but is often the most practical resolution when one co-trustee no longer wishes to serve.
What if both co-trustees are acting in good faith but still cannot agree?
Good faith does not resolve deadlock. Pennsylvania law requires co-trustees to act jointly, and when they cannot, the trust administration stops regardless of the reason for the impasse. Court intervention is available when deadlock substantially impairs administration, even when neither co-trustee has acted improperly.
How does Orphans’ Court resolve a co-trustee dispute?
Allegheny County Orphans’ Court can authorize a specific action over one co-trustee’s objection, appoint a special trustee with authority to break deadlocks, or remove one or both co-trustees and appoint a successor. The court’s primary concern is whether the current trustee arrangement serves the beneficiaries’ interests and the trust’s purposes.
For related issues see our pages on trustee removal in Pennsylvania, trust litigation, trust beneficiary rights, Orphans’ Court in Pennsylvania, and co-executors in Pennsylvania.