No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that a trust beneficiary is bound by a predispute arbitration provision in an investment account agreement signed by the trustee, finding the trustee had authority under the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code to execute such agreements.
In this interlocutory appeal, the trustee of a trust executed an investment/brokerage account agreement that included a provision requiring the arbitration of disputes. The trust beneficiary filed a lawsuit asserting claims against the investment broker, and the defendant broker sought to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision in the account agreement. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the signature of the trustee on the account agreement binds the beneficiary of the trust to the predispute arbitration provision. We hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code is intended to give trustees broad authority to fulfill their duties as trustee. We also hold that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code gives trustees the power to enter into predispute arbitration agreements, so long as doing so is not prohibited under the operative trust instrument. We hold that the trust instrument in this case gives the named trustee broad authority and does not prohibit the trustee from entering into a predispute arbitration agreement. As a result, we interpret the trust instrument as authorizing the trustee to execute the account agreement with the defendant broker, including the predispute arbitration provision therein. Thus, under both the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and the operative trust instrument, the trustee had authority to enter into the arbitration agreement contained within the account agreement. The question of whether the trust beneficiary in this case is bound by the arbitration provision is governed by the principle that a third party who seeks the benefit of a contract must also bear its burdens. Applying this principle, the trust beneficiary in this case may be bound to arbitrate claims against the investment broker that seek to enforce the account agreement. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and va
What Happened
A trust beneficiary named Alexis Breanna Gladden had a dispute with Cumberland Trust And Investment Company, a financial firm that managed her trust's investments. When the trustee (the person legally responsible for managing the trust) originally set up the investment account, they signed an agreement that included a clause requiring any future disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. When Gladden later sued the investment company, the company argued that she had to use arbitration instead of going to court because of this clause.
What the Court Decided
The Tennessee Supreme Court sided with Cumberland Trust. They ruled that Gladden was bound by the arbitration agreement even though she didn't personally sign it. The court found that the trustee had the legal authority under Tennessee law to make this decision on behalf of all trust beneficiaries, including requiring arbitration for future disputes.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling shows that workers may be bound by arbitration agreements they never directly agreed to if someone with legal authority signed on their behalf. This could limit workers' ability to sue in court, potentially affecting those in trust-managed benefit plans or similar arrangements where third parties make decisions about dispute resolution.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Wade Harvey, Ex Rel. Alexis Breanna Gladden v. Cumberland Trust And Investment Company from the same court.
Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions…
Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits.…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.