BRINKER v. C. Michael Brinker; Gregory A. Brinker; Janet B. Franke; M. Arlene Luebbe; N. Barry Brinker; Susan B. Mullins; and Thomas Brinker, as Successor Trustee of the Brinker Family Trust, Real Parties in Interest (2026)

OPINION AND ORDER

D. Anthony Brinker (Brinker) seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Kenton Circuit Court from proceeding with a trial for damages in an appeal from the Kenton District Court of an action involving a family trust. After careful review, we GRANT the petition. This is a pyrrhic victory for Brinker because we also direct remand of the case to the Kenton District Court for further required adjudication of the claims against Brinker.

BACKGROUND

This case has a protracted, complicated, and somewhat tortured procedural history. Brinker was the trustee of the Brinker Family Trust (Trust); he was also one of numerous beneficiaries under the terms of the Trust. Real Parties in Interest are the other beneficiaries (Beneficiaries). They filed the underlying action in Kenton District Court, seeking an accounting of the Trust and to have Brinker removed as Trustee. They also made claims for negligence and breach of contract and sought damages. Beneficiaries eventually filed an amended complaint with the district court, citing to various statutes in Kentucky's Uniform Trust Code (UTC).² They still sought removal of Brinker as Trustee, an accounting of the Trust, and made further claims seeking various damages.

The district court ordered Brinker to provide an accounting of the Trust on at least two occasions in 2019. He failed to do so. On April 7, 2021, the district court entered a handwritten, perfunctory order that stated the Trust terminated pursuant to its own terms in February 2020, due to the death of Dorothy Brinker, and ordered the Trust assets to be distributed equally among the beneficiaries, which included Brinker.

On April 29, 2021, the district court entered an order to clarify its prior order, which stated, in relevant part, that “[t]here [have] been numerous allegations of fraud and abuse of the trustee duties. These allegations have not been substantiated[³ ] and therefore will not be considered with the Courts [sic] decision on termination of the trust.” Based on the limited record before us, it appears these 2021 orders were entered without an evidentiary hearing on Beneficiaries’ claims and without the district court having ever received an accounting of the Trust from Brinker.

Beneficiaries appealed to the Kenton Circuit Court. They asked for the case to be remanded to the district court with instructions for an evidentiary hearing to address the claims in their complaint. The circuit court entered an order stating the following:

A. The matter shall be sent back to District Court for the appropriate accounting of the Trust assets that are at issue in this matter.

B. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the other causes of action filed and related to the Trust at issue as they are adversarial at this time.

The limited record before us shows that, upon remand to the district court, Petitioner again failed to provide a detailed accounting. He did provide a handwritten document that, according to Beneficiaries, failed to account for at least $395,000 of Trust assets. We find no formal approval of any accounting.

When Beneficiaries attempted to depose Brinker, he gave very few substantive responses and instead pled the 5th Amendment.⁴ On December 11, 2024, the district court entered another handwritten, perfunctory order that stated all motions were denied, and the Trust assets were to be distributed equally among beneficiaries, including Brinker. It is unclear from the limited record before us what motions were actually before the district court or what type of hearing was held, if any, prior to entry of the December 11, 2024, order.

Apparently not sure what they could or should do, Beneficiaries had also filed a motion for summary judgment in the circuit court for their claims of misuse of the Trust, misfeasance, malfeasance, abuse, fraud, dishonesty, breach of fiduciary duties, negligence, and misconduct in Brinker's official duties as Trustee. Brinker responded by arguing, in part, that the district court had proper jurisdiction over all claims of Beneficiaries. The circuit court granted summary judgment in the appeal in favor of Beneficiaries and scheduled a trial to determine damages. Brinker filed this original action with this Court seeking a writ of prohibition based on lack of jurisdiction of the circuit court to determine damages in the pending appeal.

ANALYSIS

A writ is an extraordinary remedy. Ridgeway Nursing & Rehab. Facility, LLC v. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Ky. 2013). Courts are reluctant to issue writs because they “necessitate[ ] an abbreviated record which magnifies the chance of incorrect rulings that would prematurely and improperly cut off the rights of litigants.” Interactive Media Ent. and Gaming Ass'n v. Wingate, 320 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Ky. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the Kentucky Supreme Court has held that writs are appropriate in limited circumstances:

A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted.

Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004) (emphasis original).

We confine our analysis to the first class of writ. Petitioner argues that, because no party filed a petition in the circuit court within 20 days of Beneficiaries’ petition in district court, the circuit court is acting outside of its jurisdiction. We agree the circuit court now lacks jurisdiction over the claims originally filed in the district court except to the extent of a ruling in an appellate capacity.

We turn to the UTC. Enacted by our General Assembly in 2014, various statutes contained within the UTC provide jurisdiction exclusively to the district court or the circuit court or allow for concurrent jurisdiction in some matters related to trusts.

KRS 386B.7-100 provides that “[t]he District Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over matters under this subchapter relating to the office of the trustee.” KRS 386B.8-130(4) provides the district court with exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the duty of a trustee to inform and report. The district court has exclusive jurisdiction over any breach of trust claims made through an objection pursuant to KRS 386B.8-180. PNC Bank, National Association v. Edwards, 590 S.W.3d 818 (Ky. 2019).

By contrast, KRS 386B.4-130(3) provides that the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to apply the cy pres doctrine to a trust. Claims for breaches of trust and appropriate remedies are addressed in KRS 386B, Subchapter 10, and jurisdiction of those claims may be concurrent for the district and the circuit court. Davis v. Davis, 563 S.W.3d 105, 110 (Ky. App. 2018).

Which court has jurisdiction over claims for these remedies is governed by KRS 386B.2-030:

Except with regard to matters otherwise provided for by statute:

(1) The District Court and Circuit Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction of any proceedings in this Commonwealth brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning any trust matter; and

(2) If a proceeding is initially brought in District Court concerning any trust matter, the jurisdiction of the District Court shall become exclusive with respect to such matter unless, within twenty (20) days of receipt of notice of such proceeding, a party files an action in Circuit Court relating to the same trust matter, in which event the District Court shall be divested of jurisdiction and the Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such action.

(Emphasis added.)

It is undisputed that a petition was never filed in circuit court by any party. Instead, the parties let all claims proceed in district court and, upon entry of an unfavorable ruling, Beneficiaries filed an appeal with the circuit court. This is where the procedural posture of the case takes another turn into unchartered waters not clearly mapped in the published caselaw addressing the UTC. This case presents a matter of first impression.

According to the order entered in October 2021, the circuit court remanded the case to district court only for the purpose of an accounting. The circuit court attempted to retain jurisdiction over all other claims of Beneficiaries because the claims were “adversarial.” It is unclear under what authority the circuit court concluded it could proceed with adjudication of Beneficiaries’ claims in the context of an appeal.

We find no such authority in the UTC. It does not exist in our Rules of Appellate Procedure, nor in the Kentucky Constitution, which provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ppeals shall be upon the record and not by trial de novo.” Ky. Const. § 115. It is not supported by KRS Chapter 23A, which governs the duties and operations of circuit courts in Kentucky.

We must take a close look at KRS 24A.120 to find the answer. When applying a statute, we must always seek the intention of the General Assembly as they stated it. In doing so, we must consider the statute as a whole, not by reading its provisions out of its entire context. Commonwealth v. Shirley, 653 S.W.3d 571 (Ky. 2022).

Generally, civil cases involving claims of more than $5,000 must go to circuit court, because the district court has this $5,000 limit. KRS 24A.120(1). In probate matters, the district court has jurisdiction unless a dispute becomes adversarial. KRS 24A.120(2). For example, validity of a will may be questioned in district court but may also be the subject of an adversarial proceeding in circuit court. See, e.g., Mullins v. First American Bank, 781 S.W.2d 527 (Ky. App. 1989).

This is not a probate case. It is a trust case. When the General Assembly enacted the UTC, it made a specific addition to the authority of the district courts: “Matters involving trusts in accordance with KRS 386B.2-030.” KRS 24A.120(4). To act in accordance with KRS 386B.2-030(2), the jurisdiction remains exclusively with the district court unless the process for essentially a removal of the case to circuit court occurs. That did not occur in this case.

Adding to the confusion caused by the procedures followed in this case is the fact that, due to the order of the circuit court retaining jurisdiction, the appeal never became final, yet the district court continued to rule on various matters while the appeal was still pending, including the order entered December 11, 2024, which provided the Trust was to be divided equally among beneficiaries. “As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on any issues while the appeal is pending, except with respect to issues of custody and support in a domestic relations case.” Goodlett v. Brittain, 544 S.W.3d 656, 665 (Ky. App. 2018).

What occurred was an unusual and erroneous retention of jurisdiction in an appeal over claims that were supposed to be within the jurisdiction of the district court. This was compounded by an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the district court while an appeal was pending in circuit court. To add further to the frustration presented by the case, the district court did not actually comply with the original remand instructions of the circuit court about the question that clearly was within the district court's jurisdiction – a proper accounting. Such an accounting would be a proper step in evaluating the merits of the Beneficiaries’ other claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of prohibition is GRANTED. Because no party filed a petition in circuit court pursuant to KRS 386B.2-030(2) for any claim made by Beneficiaries in the district court, the district court obtained exclusive jurisdiction over all claims, subject to an appeal after the claims are properly addressed. The circuit court erred when it claimed continuing jurisdiction over Beneficiaries’ trust-related (not probate) causes of action simply because they were adversarial in nature. The circuit court should have remanded the entire action to the district court. Because the appeal never became final and the district court did not comply with the original remand instructions anyway, the circuit court must remand the entire matter to the district court with directions that the district court properly resolve all claims asserted by the Beneficiaries. IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 386B.1-010 – KRS 386B.11-050.

3.   Substantiation is usually a term applied in certain family or district court situations related to allegations of abuse, not to a finding of whether breaches of trust occurred.

4.   As these matters wound their way through the Kenton County courts, Brinker was convicted of various felonies in Campbell County related to theft of funds from other trusts and estates he represented as an attorney. See Campbell County Case No. 21-CR-00015; 2023-CA-1028-MR (this Court dismissed his appeal). Brinker was recently permanently disbarred after a prolonged suspension. See In re Brinker, 713 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Ky. 2025).

EASTON, JUDGE:

ALL CONCUR.