When a parent wants to provide continuing financial support for their children after the parent’s death, a common estate‑planning strategy is a testamentary trust. Under this approach, the parents’ Will directs that the remaining probate assets “pour over” into the trust created at death, with children or other loved ones as trust beneficiaries.
On paper, the structure looks simple:
- The personal representative handles probate.
- The trustee manages the trust.
- The beneficiaries ultimately receive the benefit.
Problems arise when the estate is mismanaged, especially when delays, excessive fees, or questionable decisions shrink the assets that are supposed to fund the trust.
That leads many beneficiaries to ask an important (and reasonable) question:
Can I, as a testamentary trust beneficiary, sue the personal representative of my parent’s pourover Will?
Under Maryland law, the answer is usually no—but that is not the end of the story.
Understanding Standing in Maryland Probate
Maryland limits who may challenge estate administration to an “interested person.” Under Estates & Trusts § 1‑101(i), an interested person is someone with a property right or claim that may be affected by the proceeding.
In a pourover, Will, however, the trust itself—not the individual beneficiaries—is the residuary beneficiary of the estate. That technical distinction is decisive.
Maryland courts focus less on labels and more on two core questions:
- Who owns the claim?
- Who has legal authority to assert it?
Even though trust beneficiaries suffer the economic impact of estate mismanagement, claims arising during probate generally belong to the estate, not to the beneficiaries individually.
What the Case Law Says
Maryland appellate courts recognize that residuary beneficiaries often qualify as interested persons because estate mismanagement directly reduces what they ultimately receive.
In Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio, the court held that residuary beneficiaries of a will may object to excessive fees, waste, or undervaluation of estate assets because they bear the financial consequences.
That principle often extends to pourover trusts: if estate mismanagement shrinks the residue, the trust—and indirectly its beneficiaries—are harmed.
But there is a critical limitation.
In Ferguson v. Cramer, Maryland’s highest court drew a firm line:
- Claims belonging to the estate must be brought by the personal representative;
- Beneficiaries lack standing to sue on those claims—even if the personal representative refuses to act;
- The proper remedy is to compel action or seek removal, not to bring an independent lawsuit.
The same rule applies on the trust side. Claims belonging to a trust must be brought by the trustee, not by beneficiaries acting on their own.
What Trust Beneficiaries Cannot Do
As a result, a trust beneficiary generally may not:
- Sue the personal representative for negligence, malpractice, or breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the estate;
- Bring tort or contract claims owned by the estate;
- Substitute their judgment for the personal representative’s discretionary decisions;
- Sue estate professionals directly for injury to the estate.
Attempts to bypass these rules typically result in dismissal for lack of standing.
What Trust Beneficiaries Can Do
Although direct lawsuits are off the table, Maryland law provides several powerful procedural remedies.
1. File Exceptions to Estate Accountings
A testamentary trust beneficiary may file exceptions to a personal representative’s interim or final accounting in the Orphans’ Court. See Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts (“E&T”) § 7‑501; Vito v. Klausmeyer, 216 Md. App. 376, 86 A.3d 675 (2014); Spry v. Gooner, 190 Md. App. 1, 985 A.2d 606 (2010).
Common grounds include:
- Excessive commissions or attorney’s fees
- Waste or mismanagement
- Improper distributions
- Self‑dealing
Timing is critical. Exceptions must generally be filed within 20 days of court approval, even though beneficiaries may not receive direct notice. This makes regular docket monitoring essential.
If sustained, exceptions can result in account adjustments or fiduciary surcharges.
2. Petition the Court to Enforce Fiduciary Duties
If a personal representative delays administration, ignores valid claims, or refuses to act, beneficiaries may petition the Orphans’ Court to enforce statutory and fiduciary obligations.
The court can:
- Compel timely administration
- Require pursuit of viable estate claims
- Enforce fiduciary duties
- Remove the personal representative for failure to perform a material duty
Maryland courts consistently emphasize that this oversight must occur within the probate proceeding, not through separate litigation.
3. Act Through the Trustee
Because the trust is the residuary beneficiary of a pourover estate, the trustee is often the proper party to assert claims affecting the trust’s interests.
If the trustee is inactive, conflicted, or refuses to act, beneficiaries may:
- Make a written demand that the trustee protect the trust
- Petition the court to compel performance
- Seek removal of the trustee for persistent failure to administer effectively
This is especially important when the same individual serves as both personal representative and trustee, a situation that can create significant conflicts of interest.
The Bottom Line
Maryland law draws a clear boundary:
Trust beneficiaries under a pourover Will may participate in probate—but they may not sue the personal representative directly on trust claims.
The correct tools are procedural, not personal:
- Exceptions
- Petitions
- Court enforcement
- Fiduciary removal and surcharge
Used correctly, these remedies are effective and powerful. Used incorrectly, they lead to dismissal and unnecessary expense. For trust beneficiaries facing estate mismanagement, understanding the limits—and the leverage points—can make a significant difference.
