Boyce Living Trust (2025) & Limitations on Challenging Trusts

Given the assets which are involved with trusts, we should not be too surprised to learn that trusts are often challenged by “interested parties.” Trusts might be challenged on a variety of grounds; in many cases, interested parties (i.e. beneficiaries, etc.) challenge the duties and responsibilities assigned to trustees, because trustees play a critical role in the administration of trusts. One of the common types of challenges is the challenge of a particular term or phrase within a trust instrument. When an interested party makes this type of challenge, a complex analysis ensues, and the court often has to conduct a sophisticated review of both the trust language and other relevant information.

Although interested parties have the ability – within certain restrictions – to challenge trusts in various ways, other parties can also defend against these challenges. In the recent case of Boyce Living Trust (2025), the trustee defended against a challenge by citing Section 14.5-605 of the Maryland Annotated Code, Estates and Trusts Article. The trustee argued that this section prevented the challenge from succeeding, as this section created a statute of repose, as opposed to a statute of limitations.

Let’s go over this case in more detail.

‍

Factual Background of the Case

Joretta and Walter Boyce established a revocable trust in 2008 (the “Boyce Living Trust”). Joretta and Walter were named as the trustees of the trust and as primary beneficiaries. The couple’s daughter, Janet, was named as the successor trustee, and the couple’s granddaughter, Lynette, was the successor trustee to Janet. Walter passed away in 2018, and subsequently Joretta established a new amended trust. This new trust retained Janet as the trustee, but replaced Lynette with another successor trustee, Joseph. Joretta passed away in 2021.

‍

After Joretta passed away in 2021, a petition was filed by all grandchildren of Joretta and Walter. The petition made numerous claims and allegations, including unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duties, among others. Joseph attempted to block this petition by citing Section 14.5-605, arguing that the petition was time barred by the section’s restrictions. The petitioners lost at the trial court level and then the case went to the appellate division.

‍

Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion

Section 14.5-605 imposes a time restriction on the ability of an interested party to challenge the validity of a trust. Specifically, the section states that a challenge to the validity of a trust must occur: “... within the earliest of (1) 1 year after the death of the settlor; or (2) 6 months after the trustee sends the [interested parties] a copy of the trust instrument and a notice informing the [interested parties] of the existence of the trust, the name and address of the trustee, and the time allowed for commencing a proceeding. ...”

‍

The primary question was whether this section was a statute of limitations or a statute of repose. Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose differ in a number of ways, but perhaps the most critical distinction is the fact that statutes of repose don’t allow for “tolling,” or deferring the beginning of the clock until after the occurrence of an injury or the discovery of an injury. In other words, the time restrictions of a statute of repose are more strictly enforced, as they are designed to protect defendants from liability after a specific period of time.  

‍

In its opinion, the appellate court conducted a very thorough analysis of the section in order to determine legislative intent. After its analysis, the appellate court concluded that the legislature had clearly created a statute of repose, and that therefore the petitioners were barred by the section from bringing their action. Given that the trust was recreated in 2018, the petitioners had until 2019 to bring their action, but instead the petitioners delayed until after the settlor had passed away. This is a critical case for interested parties moving forward, and something which all estate planning practitioners in Maryland should be aware of.

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources

Readers who want to learn more about challenging trusts, the construction or interpretation of trust terms, details on establishing trusts, or any other related estate planning topic, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.

‍