Oswald v. Oswald

majority opinion

[Cite as Oswald v. Oswald, 2026-Ohio-3053.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LUCAS COUNTY

MICHAEL S. OSWALD ET AL., COURT OF APPEALS NO. {48}L-25-00099

APPELLEES TRIAL COURT NO. CI0202401897

DAVID F. OSWALD

INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS

TRUSTEE OF THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED DECISION AND JUDGMENT

OSWALD TRUST AGREEMENT

Decided: August 7, 2026

APPELLANT

*****

John P. Miller and Graycen M. Wood, for appellees.

Gregory H. Wagoner, Nicholas T. Stack, Evan J. Bunis,

and Jordan B. Isrow, for appellant.

*****

DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal by appellant, David Oswald,1 Individually and as Trustee

of the Amended and Restated Oswald Trust Agreement (“Amended Trust”), from the

May 12, 2025 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

{¶ 2} David sets forth one assignment of error with two parts:

For ease of discussion, we will generally refer to the parties by their first names.

A. The Trial Court committed reversible error when it granted Plaintiffs

Michael Oswald (“Michael”), Thomas Oswald (“Thomas”), and Susan

Bartolett’s (“Susan”) (together “Appellees”) motion to remove David . . .

as Trustee of the . . . [Amended Trust] pursuant to R.C. 5807.06(C). . .

B. The Trial Court committed reversible error when it used R.C.

5807.06(C) to modify the Amended Trust and appoint a Successor Trustee.

Background

{¶ 3} This matter involves a family, a family business, other businesses, a family

trust and its beneficiaries and the removal of a family member as trustee amid allegations

of, inter alia, financial wrongdoing, self-dealing, lack of transparency and a conflict of

interest.

{¶ 4} Roger and Joan Oswald, husband and wife, had four children: appellant,

David, and appellees, Thomas, Michael and Susan. In 1962, Roger’s father purchased

A.H. Jamra Co. (“Jamra”), and since then Jamra has been wholly owned by the Oswald

family. Jamra is a wholesaler of tobacco, candy and grocery products, which serves and

delivers products to shops, supermarkets and convenience stores in Ohio, Michigan and

Indiana.

{¶ 5} In 1990, all members of the Oswald family entered into the Oswald Trust

Agreement (“the Original Trust”). Roger was named the trustee. The purpose of the

Original Trust was to provide for Jamra’s orderly operation by granting the trustee, and

his successor, the power and authority to continue Jamra’s operation in the event of the

death, incapacity, resignation or retirement of Roger. The members of the Oswald family

were the owners of 16 shares of Jamra’s common stock, out of the 22 shares of

outstanding common stock.

{¶ 6} According to David, between 1990 and 2003, Roger and Thomas served in

the dual role as trustee of the Original Trust and president of Jamra. In 2003, David

replaced Thomas as president of Jamra.

{¶ 7} In December 31, 2009, the Amended Trust was entered into by all members

of the Oswald family. David was named the trustee. The purpose of the Amended Trust

was to provide for Jamra’s orderly operation by granting the trustee, and his successor,

“the power and authority to continue the operation of [Jamra] and to provide for transfers

by gift of the beneficial interest flowing from the shares contributed by . . . [the family

members].” The Oswald family members were the owners of 80 shares of Jamra’s

common stock (previously 16 shares2 prior to a 5 to 1 split). Roger and Joan each owned

25 percent of the shares while each of their children owned 12.5 percent.

{¶ 8} Soon thereafter, according to David, Roger and Joan reallocated their Jamra

shares to David, making him the majority (51.25%) owner of Jamra.

{¶ 9} At some point, David formed Zigm, LLC (“Zigm”) and other entities. Zigm,

per David, was “a logistics company, to address liability concerns and union benefits

issues to protect Jamra.” Zigm is an acronym for the names of David’s children.

It is unclear whether 16 or 22 shares of stock were previously outstanding. This discrepancy has no impact on our decision.

{¶ 10} On March 26, 2024, appellees filed a complaint against David, individually

and in his capacity as trustee, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties, breach of

trust, fraud, and conversion.

{¶ 11} On June 26, 2024, David fired Susan from her position as vice-president of

Jamra.

{¶ 12} On July 11, 2024, David filed a derivative suit in Jamra’s name against

appellees. In August 2024, the case was dismissed after it was consolidated with

appellees’ case.

{¶ 13} On October 11, 2024, appellees filed a motion to remove David as the

trustee and to appoint a fiduciary to oversee the Amended Trust and Jamra until the

matter was ultimately resolved. Appellees alleged, inter alia, there was an inherent

conflict of interest in David’s dual roles as Jamra president and trustee of the Amended

Trust, there was a breakdown of communication between David and appellees, and David

acted against Jamra and the beneficiaries’ best interests by placing Jamra’s assets into

companies David owned with his sons and by using company funds for personal

expenses.

{¶ 14} David filed an opposition with supporting affidavits. David argued, inter

alia, that the removal of a trustee is a drastic remedy and the party seeking removal must

establish a basis for removal by clear and convincing evidence.

{¶ 15} On April 21, 22, and 28, 2025, an evidentiary hearing was held. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court orally granted the motion to remove David as

trustee and installed a successor trustee and special fiduciary. The court stated, in

pertinent part:

First and foremost, you can be a good president and a bad trustee or

the opposite. These are not -- in some ways they can be mutually exclusive

roles in terms of running the company well but failing in your duties that

Ohio law imposes upon a trustee. There’s a duty of loyalty owed to the

beneficiaries of the trust. There’s a duty not to do self-dealing of the trust.

. . . [I]f you’re running a business in Ohio that is doing tens of

millions of dollars in sales, there’s an obligation that you follow the law and

accept the duties of being a trustee of the trust. There’s an inherent conflict

between being the trustee of the trust in this situation and being president of

Jamra . . . For every dollar that the president of Jamra pays himself, that is

less retained earnings. Another way to say that is equity. If dividends slash

disbursements were allowed, that’s 75 cents less per dollar of

disbursements that could be made to the trustees, and there’s nothing here

in the record that indicates that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the

hiding of the bonus in a wholly owned separate company did not violate the

duties of being a trustee.

So, I find the plaintiffs have met their burden. . . I don’t think that

the successor trustee needs to run the business because, as I said before, the

president can be different than the trustee. So, really I think what a

successor trustee appointed by me really would do would be to serve as the

oversight to make sure that at least decisions between now and the trial

don’t involve self-dealing and don’t involve -- don’t harm the beneficiaries

of the trust.

I would also add that for purposes of the duties of a trustee, it

doesn’t really matter if the beneficiaries, and I’m not saying that they are,

but doesn’t really matter that they’re not good or not worthy or stole from

the company or ran the company poorly or created a competing company.

Like the duties to the beneficiary still are imposed by Ohio law despite their

conduct, and so I think there’s a lack of understanding on the part of David

as to what his duties are to his siblings as trustee of this trust.

So, I will appoint Steven Skutch to serve as . . . interim trustee for

the family trust.

{¶ 16} On May 12, 2025, the trial court issued an Interim Order Appointing

Successor Trustee (“Interim Order”). David appealed.3

Interim Order

{¶ 17} The trial court’s Interim Order provides in relevant part:

Based on Plaintiffs[/appellees’] . . . motion to remove . . . David . . .,

individually and as Trustee of the Amended [Trust], and for good cause

shown, the same is granted, as follows:

1. David is removed as Trustee of the [Amended] Trust, as interim

relief pending a trial on the merits, per R.C. 5807.06(C).

2. Steven N. Skutch (“Skutch”) is appointed Successor Trustee of the

[Amended] Trust and to act as special fiduciary of the Trust under the terms

and conditions of this Order pursuant to R.C. 5801.01.

3. David shall retain his position as President of . . . Jamra . . . unless

Skutch deems David’s removal necessary to facilitate the objectives of the

[Amended] Trust. Skutch may only remove David as President of Jamra

upon application to the Court. David shall provide Skutch with full access

to the entirety of Jamra’s facilities, and corporate records.

4. The [Amended] Trust shall be modified and supplemented by this

Order and by any further orders that may be issued by this Court.

1. Extent of Skutch’s Authority

1.1 Skutch shall not take title to the Trust and Jamra Property. Title

to the Trust and Jamra Property shall remain in the name of the Trust and/or

Jamra, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

1.2 Without limiting or expanding the foregoing, Skutch is

authorized to exercise all powers generally available and shall be subject to

all the duties of a Successor Trustee under the laws of the State of Ohio that

may be incidental to the management, operation, and sale of the Trust.

Appellees filed a motion to dismiss David’s appeal for lack of a final appealable order. On September 26, 2025, appellees’ motion was denied.

1.3 Skutch shall have any additional powers that are provided by law

and that the Court may from time to time direct or confer.

1.4 Skutch shall, during the pendency of this action, have the right to

apply to this Court for instructions or directions.

1.5 The authority granted to Skutch is self-executing, unless the

action requires Approval.

1.6 Skutch is authorized to act on behalf of the Trust and in the

Trust’s name as Skutch deems appropriate without further order of this

Court and without personal recourse against Skutch (subject to the General

Provisions).

3. Skutch Compensation, Reports, Accounting, and Bond.

3.3 By the 20th day after the end of each quarter Skutch shall

prepare a Successor Trustee Report (including a detailed accounting report

and other appropriate information relative to the administration of the Trust

and (as required by law) pertaining to the operations of the Trust.[)].

3.4 Skutch’s Reports shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and

served upon the parties . . .

Law - Removal of Trustee/Modification of Trust

R.C. 5807.06 provides:

(A) The settlor, a cotrustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to

remove a trustee, or the court may remove a trustee on its own initiative.

(B) The court may remove a trustee for any of the following reasons:

(1) The trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;

(2) Lack of cooperation among cotrustees substantially impairs the

administration of the trust;

(3) Because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee

to administer the trust effectively, the court best determines that removal of

the trustee serves the interests of the beneficiaries.

or in addition to removing a trustee, the court may order any appropriate

relief under division (B) of section 5810.01 of the Revised Code that is

necessary to protect the trust property or the interests of the beneficiaries.

R.C. 5810.01(B) states in relevant part:

To remedy a breach of trust that has occurred or may occur, the court may

do any of the following:

(7) Remove the trustee as provided in section 5807.06 of the Revised Code;

(10) Order any other appropriate relief.

{¶ 18} “[T]he party seeking to remove a trustee must show a basis for removal by

clear and convincing evidence.” Tomazic v. Rapoport, 2012-Ohio-4402, ¶ 33 (8th Dist.),

citing Diemert v. Diemert, 2003-Ohio-6496, ¶ 15-16 (8th Dist.). See also In re Trust of

Tary v. Seiple, 2022-Ohio-3773, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.).

Assignment of Error

{¶ 19} David argues the trial court erred when it granted appellees’ motion to

remove him as trustee of the Amended Trust because appellees failed to satisfy the clear

and convincing evidentiary burden necessary for removal. He asserts the court made no

findings on the record that appellees demonstrated any specific basis for removal under

R.C. 5807.06(B), and the court granted the motion to remove solely “for good cause

shown,” which is not an evidentiary standard. David submits the court ignored wellestablished principles regarding a settlor’s intent and the purported inherent conflicts of

interest created by the settlors. Moreover, David maintains the court made no findings

that his purported inherent conflict of interest prejudiced the beneficiaries.

{¶ 20} David contends the court exceeded its authority by removing him as an

interim measure under R.C. 5807.06(C), as that statute does not authorize the removal of

a trustee pending a final decision on a request to remove a trustee. In addition, David

asserts that the Interim Order exceeds the court’s scope of authority, as the statute does

not authorize a court to amend the terms of a trust as interim relief or any other relief. He

notes, for example, R.C. 5804.12(A) requires a trial court to “make the modification in

accordance with the settlor’s probable intentions,” yet here, the court modified the

Amended Trust but failed to consider or apply any modification standards. He also

argues the Interim Order is contrary to the best interests of the beneficiaries.

{¶ 21} David argues that since 2009, he has worked diligently to ensure Jamra’s

orderly and continued operation by taking care of the beneficiaries in his role as trustee

and providing jobs at Jamra and its related businesses to beneficiaries and their families.

{¶ 22} David asserts that as president of Jamra, he receives an annual salary and

bonuses. He contends Jamra generates approximately $90 million in sales annually, and

in 2024, he received a salary of $150,000 and a $300,000 bonus, which is reasonable.

David argues, however, that appellees presented no evidence that his compensation from

Jamra was unreasonable, and the court made no such finding.

{¶ 23} He further claims that the indirect accounting of his annual bonus is not a

basis for removing him as trustee, despite the court’s concern that the annual bonus was

not paid directly by Jamra, but rather by Zigm, a related entity, as an expense. He notes

the court characterized this accounting method as hiding his bonus, but David maintains

the accounting method was not nefarious or improper, it is not a serious breach of trust,

and it does not render him unfit to serve as trustee. He insists that to the extent the

accounting method concerned the court, removal is far too drastic a remedy.

{¶ 24} David submits that in his role as trustee, he has been more transparent

concerning the Amended Trust than any of his predecessors. He also claims that the

Amended Trust gives the beneficiaries the right to inspect the trust’s books and records,

but none of the appellees requested to inspect the books and records prior to issuing a

letter from counsel in late December 2023. David observes that he employed Michael

and Susan to work at Jamra, and in their positions, they had regular access to Jamra’s

financial information, computers, and personnel.

{¶ 25} David observes that “[a trial] court’s purpose in interpreting a trust is to

effectuate, within the legal parameters established by a court or by statute, the settlor’s

intent,” citing Domo v. McCarthy, 66 Ohio St.3d 312 (1993), paragraph one of the

syllabus. He also notes that when a settlor has named the trustee, removal of the trustee

voids the settlors’ intent, so courts apply a more stringent standard to such removal

requests. He cites to Gorby v. Aberth, 2017-Ohio-274, ¶ 31 (9th Dist.) (“[C]ourts less

readily remove a trustee named by the settlor than one appointed by the court.”).

Standard of Review

{¶ 26} David suggests that the issues presented in his appeal are subject to

different standards of review. He contends that questions related to statutory

interpretation and authority and whether the trial court applied the appropriate standards

10.

and law are subject to de novo review. He claims a de novo standard of review must be

applied to the trial court’s conclusions of law in order to decide whether the facts satisfy

the applicable legal standard. He also claims that the decision to remove a trustee

typically lies within the trial court’s discretion, but if the issue concerns the application of

law, it can be a mixed question of fact and law, which calls for two different standards of

review.

{¶ 27} In support, David cites to several cases, including “Wayt v. DHSC, LLC,

155 Ohio St.[]3d 401, 404 (2018) (‘The standard of review for questions of statutory

interpretation is de novo.’) [and] State v. Vanpernis, 2025-Ohio-365, ¶ 14 [(4th Dist.)]

(‘[W]hether a trial court has used the proper legal standard of review is a question of law,

which we review de novo.’).” He also relies on Kidd v. Alfano, 2016-Ohio-7519, ¶ 28 (2d

Dist.) (“[W]hile the decision to remove a trustee typically lies . . . within the sound

discretion of the trial court, ‘when the issue concerns application of law, it can present a

mixed question of law and fact, which calls for two different standards of review.’”),

citing Arnott v. Arnott, 2012-Ohio-3208, ¶ 11.

{¶ 28} Trial courts “have a wide discretion in the appointment and removal of

trustees.” In re Labold’s Will, 148 Ohio St. 332, 339 (1947). Thus, appellate courts

review a trial court’s decision to remove a trustee for an abuse of discretion. Gorby, at ¶

31. An abuse of discretion connotes more than the trial court’s attitude was unreasonable,

arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).

11.

{¶ 29} Although David advocates for different standards of review to be applied to

the issues on appeal, upon review, we find, based on his arguments and the relevant law,

that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion.

Relevant Trial Court Pleadings

{¶ 30} In their complaint against David, appellees alleged, inter alia:

22. David has operated Jamra as its President since approximately 2003.

23. David has not properly produced Jamra’s books and records, pursuant

to the terms of the Trust.

24. On December 27, 2023, [appellees], through their counsel, sent a letter

to David, through his counsel, to formally request supporting information

for Jamra’s fiscal year 2022 and 2023 financial statements . . .

26. In response to the December 27 [l]etter, David provided only summary

information that raised more questions than answers.

27. Upon information and belief, David is inappropriately using money

from Jamra for the benefit of himself and his family and to the detriment of

[appellees].

28. The records he provided in response to the December 27 [l]etter support

this allegation.

29. David provided records that show many charges for “petty cash” and

more than $75,000 of expenses for “travel, entertainment & meals,”

without any receipts or documentation to substantiate the expenses.

30. David’s records show that Jamra pays for vehicles for his own personal

benefit and that of his sons, Zachary and Max Oswald . . . , for no

legitimate business purpose.

31. Zachary’s auto reimbursement totaled $22,259.96 for 2022.

32. Zachary also received $63,470.41 in personal expenses for 2022, which

has no legitimate business purpose.

12.

33. David received $29,877.89 in personal expenses, and Max received

$6,395.55. Combined with Zachary, their personal expenses amount to 63%

of Jamra’s total personal expenses.

34. David also wrote off $588.72 of “bad debt” to Max and $826.32 of “bad

debt” to Zachary.

35. David controls various other entities, such as D.W.T., Inc.; DFO

Leasing, LLC (“DFO”); . . . [Zigm]; OZBA Land Company, LLC; Oswald

& Bartolett, LLC; DDTS Central, Ltd.; and PDH Brokerage, Ltd.

(collectively, “David Entities”).

36. David uses the David Entities to inappropriately benefit himself at

Jamra’s and [appellees’] expense.

37. For example, in 2021, David paid [Zigm] $1,161,854.20 from Jamra.

In 2022, David paid [Zigm] $1,256,693.41 from Jamra.

38. These large charges are masked as “consulting fees.”

40. David improperly puts Jamra assets into the David Entities, so he can

exercise indirect control over Jamra, without restriction by the Trust or his

duties as Trustee.

41. DFO purchased the parking lot that Jamra employees use to park.

42. Upon information and belief, DFO now charges Jamra for use of the

parking lot.

43. Susan works for Jamra as Vice President.

44. Since at least delivery of the December 27 [l]etter . . . David has

retaliated against Susan by first limiting her computer access, then

eliminating her computer access, then instructing her to train another

employee on all her responsibilities, then mirroring her computer so David

could watch “every move [Susan] makes,” planting a hidden camera in

Susan’s office, and finally requiring Susan (as Vice President of Jamra) to

punch a time clock.

45. David’s actions are retaliatory and an attempt to make Susan quit Jamra.

13.

Analysis of Arguments and Additional Law

{¶ 31} We will address David’s specific arguments in turn.

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard/Trial Court’s Findings

{¶ 32} David argues appellees did not satisfy the strict clear and convincing

evidentiary burden necessary for his removal, and the trial court granted the motion to

remove for good cause shown, which is not an evidentiary standard. David further

contends that the court made no findings on the record that appellees demonstrated a

specific basis for his removal under R.C. 5807.06(B), and the court made no findings that

his purported inherent conflict of interest prejudiced the beneficiaries in any way.

{¶ 33} Appellees counter that the Interim Order was not deficient nor contrary to

law, and David waived any complaint related to the Interim Order. They rely on Civ.R.

52, which states in relevant part that “[w]hen questions of fact are tried by the court

without a jury, judgment may be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties

in writing requests otherwise . . . in which case, the court shall state in writing the

findings of fact found separately from the conclusions of law.” Appellees submit that

Civ.R. 52 does not only apply to a final trial on the merits, but to any non-jury hearing

where factual determinations are made. They cite to, inter alia, In re Estate of Hoppes,

2014-Ohio-5749 (12th Dist.) (Appellate court held trial court erred in failing to issue

findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Civ.R. 52, with respect to the trial

court’s decision regarding a motion to remove the administrator of an estate, when a

party requested such findings.). Appellees note that the purpose of Civ.R. 52 is to aid the

court of appeals in reviewing the trial court’s decision, and they refer to, inter alia,

14.

Werden v. Crawford, 70 Ohio St.2d 122, 124 (1982). Appellees contend that “‘[i]f a party

fails to request findings of fact and conclusions of law, the party waives the right to

challenge the trial court’s lack of explicit findings.’ K.C. v. T.D., 2024-Ohio-5636, ¶ 6

(6th Dist.), citing Goddard v. Goddard, 192 Ohio App.3d 718, 726 (4th Dist.).” They

further assert that “‘[w]hen a party fails to request findings of fact and conclusions of law,

we ordinarily presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings. . . This means that we

generally must presume that the trial court applied the law correctly and must affirm if

some evidence in the record supports its judgment.’ [Goddard at 726].”

{¶ 34} Appellees further assert that they did establish several bases for David’s

removal. They cite to R.C. 5807.06(B)(1), (2) and (3),4 R.C. 5810.01(A) (“A violation by

a trustee of a duty the trustee owes to a beneficiary is a breach of trust”) and Zimmerman

v. Dillon, 2025-Ohio-3157, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.):

R.C. Chapter 5808, et seq., lists the specific duties that a trustee

owes to the trust’s beneficiaries. . . . These duties include: (1) the duty to

administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes

and the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with the applicable

Ohio statutes; (2) the duty of loyalty and to avoid conflicts of interest; (3)

the duty to act impartially when a trust involves two or more beneficiaries;

(4) the duty to “administer the trust as a prudent person would” and to

“exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution;” (5) the “duty not to incur

unreasonable costs;” (6) the duty to “take reasonable steps to take control of

and protect the trust property;” (7) the “duty to keep adequate records” and

to “keep trust property separate from the trustee's own property;” and (8)

the “duty to keep the beneficiaries reasonably informed of the

administration of the trust, and of the material facts necessary for them to

protect their interests.”

“The court may remove a trustee for . . . commit[ting] a serious breach of trust; . . . [a] [l]ack of cooperation among cotrustees. . . ; [and] [b]ecause of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure . . . the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries.”

15.

{¶ 35} Upon review, we find that since David did not request that the trial court

provide findings of fact and conclusions of law following the issuance of the Interim

Order, he waived the right to challenge the trial court’s lack of explicit findings. As such,

we presume the trial court applied the law properly if there is evidence in the record to

support the court’s decision.

{¶ 36} The record shows that the trial court expressly stated that appellees met

their burden and also stated there was nothing in the record that appellees failed to prove

that hiding the bonus in a wholly owned separate company did not violate David’s trustee

duties. Even though the trial court did not explicitly state what the burden was, the clear

and convincing standard was plainly set forth in the record, including in David’s

opposition to the motion to remove him as trustee, and further, there is nothing in the

record to indicate that the trial court did not apply the proper burden in reaching its

determination to remove David as trustee.

{¶ 37} As to David’s arguments that the trial court made no findings on the record

that appellees demonstrated a specific basis for his removal or that his purported inherent

conflict of interest prejudiced the beneficiaries, the record shows the trial court

recognized that a successor trustee was needed to oversee David to “make sure that at

least decisions between now and the trial don’t involve self-dealing and . . . don’t harm

the beneficiaries of the trust.” Hence, we presume the court applied the law properly as

there is evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that a successor trustee was

necessary.

16.

{¶ 38} For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion, and the arguments raised by David are not well-taken.

Compensation and Bonuses/Indirect Accounting

{¶ 39} David argues that appellees presented no evidence that his compensation

from Jamra was unreasonable, and the court made no such finding. He also argues the

indirect accounting of his annual bonus was not a basis for removal and it does not render

him unfit to serve as trustee, so removal was far too drastic a remedy.

{¶ 40} Appellees counter, regarding David’s bonuses, that he never disclosed his

bonuses to appellees because he paid them through Zigm. At the hearing, David testified

that he categorized his bonuses as “consulting management” on Jamra’s books, and he

never informed appellees how he calculated his bonuses or how he reflected them in the

financial statements that he did provide to appellees. David also testified that he did not

think that appellees, as beneficiaries of the Amended Trust, deserved to know how much

bonuses he was paying himself, “[a]s president[.]” Appellees maintain that the end result

was that David, rather than paying out Jamra’s profits to the beneficiaries, moved the

profits over to Zigm, which he owns and where he pays out only to himself. Appellees

claim that a trustee should not be scheming up how to force beneficiaries out of a trust,

and it was this conflict of interest and self-dealing which carried the day for the trial

court, as without oversight, the court feared David’s wrongful conduct would continue

with him acting as both trustee and president of Jamra.

17.

{¶ 41} Again, David did not request that the trial court provide findings of fact and

conclusions of law, so he waived the right to challenge the trial court’s lack of explicit

findings as to his bonuses and compensation and accounting methods.

{¶ 42} Upon review of the record, the trial court did not specifically state that

David’s compensation from Jamra was unreasonable. Rather, the court stated “there’s

nothing here in the record that indicates that [appellees] have failed to prove that the

hiding of the bonus in a wholly owned separate company did not violate the duties of

being a trustee.” The trial court implicitly determined that David’s conduct of hiding his

bonus constituted a violation of his duties as trustee. We therefore presume the trial court

applied the law properly as there is evidence in the record to support the court’s finding

that David breached his duties with respect to his compensation and accounting practices,

such that appellees proved David, by hiding his bonus in a separate company, violated his

duties as trustee.

{¶ 43} For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion, and the arguments raised by David are not well-taken.

Trial Court Exceeded Authority/Interim Order Exceeded Scope of Authority

{¶ 44} David contends the court exceeded its authority by removing him as an

interim measure under R.C. 5807.06(C), as that statute does not authorize the removal of

a trustee pending a final decision on a request to remove a trustee. In addition, David

maintains that the Interim Order exceeds the court’s scope of authority, as the statute does

not authorize a court to amend the terms of a trust as interim relief or any other relief. He

notes, for example, R.C. 5804.12(A) requires a trial court to “make the modification in

18.

accordance with the settlor’s probable intentions,” but when the trial court modified the

Amended Trust the court failed to consider or apply any modification standards.

{¶ 45} Appellees counter that R.C. 5807.06(C) authorizes David’s removal as

trustee pending a final decision on the merits.

{¶ 46} Again, David did not request that the trial court provide findings of fact and

conclusions of law, so he waived the right to challenge the trial court’s lack of explicit

findings as to the modification of the Amended Trust.

{¶ 47} Upon review of the record, the trial court set forth that “David is removed

as Trustee of the Trust, as interim relief pending a trial on the merits, per R.C.

5807.06(C).” As set forth above, R.C. 5807.06(C) states that “[p]ending a final decision

on a request to remove a trustee . . . the court may order any appropriate relief under

division (B) of section 5810.01 of the Revised Code that is necessary to protect the trust

property or the interests of the beneficiaries.” And, as previously set forth, R.C.

5810.01(B)(7) and (10) states in relevant part “[t]o remedy a breach of trust that has

occurred or may occur, the court may . . . [r]emove the trustee as provided in section

5807.06 of the Revised Code . . . [or] [o]rder any other appropriate relief.” In accordance

with the applicable law, we find that the trial court did not exceed its authority by

removing David as trustee as an interim measure and by issuing the Interim Order in

which certain terms of the trust were amended as interim relief in order to remedy

David’s breach of trust.

{¶ 48} For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion, and the arguments raised by David are not well-taken.

19.

Conclusion

{¶ 49} Based on our findings above, we conclude David’s assignment of error is

not well-taken. The May 12, 2025 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common

Pleas is affirmed. David Oswald is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. ____________________________

JUDGE

Gene A. Zmuda, J.

Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE

CONCUR.

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of

Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported

version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

20.

Oswald v. Oswald

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain