Jul 21, 2026
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Motion To Dismiss

Federal Court Dismisses Beneficiaries' $40 Million Lawsuit Against Trust Company

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed a lawsuit brought by four trust beneficiaries against The Glenmede Trust Company, the former trustee of six family trusts, holding that the beneficiaries lacked standing to pursue the claims and that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The Allegations

Plaintiffs Dawson Price, Blake Price, Chase Epstein, and Caroline Epstein are siblings and beneficiaries of six family trusts established by their great-grandfather and grandfather. Glenmede became trustee of four trusts in 2004 and the remaining two in 2009 and, according to the Complaint, served in that capacity through at least 2023.

The Complaint centered on Heartwell Holdings LLC, a company owned by the Price Trusts. Plaintiffs alleged Glenmede improperly permitted David Epstein and Sandra Price, the trusts' two Trust Advisory Committee members, to direct more than $40 million in investments across the six trusts. Plaintiffs further alleged that Glenmede allowed excessive trust distributions, overstated the value of the Price Trusts by approximately $45.6 million, and charged improper or excessive trustee fees.

Plaintiffs also alleged that, in 2019, David Epstein forged Sandra Price's signature on documents purporting to remove Glenmede as trustee and appoint a company he controlled as successor trustee. According to the Complaint, Glenmede accepted the documents without independently verifying their authenticity or notifying the beneficiaries, although no transfer of trust assets ultimately occurred. The Complaint additionally asserted accounting irregularities, undocumented transfers, and a failure to notify beneficiaries of their rights upon reaching age 25, as allegedly required by the Ohio Trust Code.

The underlying family dispute had been the subject of ongoing litigation in the Lucas County Probate Court. In 2023, that court appointed First Trust Company as Special Fiduciary and suspended the Trust Advisory Committee. In 2025, Sandra Price, Heartwell Holdings, First Trust Company, and Glenmede entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all claims relating to the trusts and Heartwell Holdings, as well as any claims that could have been asserted in the probate proceeding. The settlement required no payment by Glenmede, which was subsequently dismissed from the probate action with prejudice.

Although the four siblings were not parties to the settlement agreement, they were parties to the probate proceeding. They later filed suit in federal court asserting claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking more than $40 million in damages.

Beneficiaries Lacked Standing

The district court first determined that Plaintiffs could not establish Article III standing. Citing the standing requirements articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 422-23 (2021), the court concluded that any recovery on the asserted claims would belong to the trusts rather than the individual beneficiaries.

Because First Trust Company had already been appointed and was serving as Special Fiduciary, the court held that it, rather than the individual beneficiaries, was the proper party to pursue claims on behalf of the trusts against a former trustee.

Claims Also Barred by Res Judicata

The court further held that the action was independently barred by res judicata. Applying Ohio's broad claim-preclusion doctrine, the court found that the 2025 settlement and resulting dismissal with prejudice constituted a final judgment on the merits; that the probate proceeding involved the same parties, including Plaintiffs; and that Plaintiffs' current claims either were raised or could have been raised in that proceeding.

The court also concluded there was "no doubt" that the federal action arose from the same underlying transactions and occurrences at issue in the probate litigation. As a result, the claims were barred and subject to dismissal.

Attorneys

Practice Areas

Jump to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use