In 1994, James Richards established an inter vivos trust and named his three minor children as the beneficiaries. Janet Richards, his wife at the time, was a trustee. In 2000, the parties divorced and, as a consequence, Ms. Richards was no longer trustee. The settlement agreement provided that Mr. Richards would pay $2000 per month in child support based, in part, upon the existence of the trust and the parties’ “anticipation that the assets maintained and the income generated by the Trust are sufficient to cover any expenses of the children incurred above and beyond the child support . . . .” The trust agreement itself provided, in relevant part, that the children would receive “all income, in annual or more frequent installments,” and that the trustee was authorized to encroach on the principal in such amounts as the trustee “may deem necessary to provide for the support and education” of the children. Eventually, Mr. Richards remarried and his new wife, Julie Richards, became a trustee. After Mr. Richards’ remarriage, the former Mrs. Richards hereinafter Appellant filed suit against him and his second wife hereinafter Appellees. She asserted, on behalf of herself and the children, various claims, including breach of the trust agreement, removal of the trustee and appointment of a receiver. After the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the children, who are the sole beneficiaries of the trust, Appellees moved for summary judgment against Appellant individually. Appellant, in turn, moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion, concluding that Appellant was not an “interested person” and, thus, lacked the requisite standing to maintain the action in her individual capacity. Appellant appeals from the order of the trial court.
1. “A trustee may be removed . . . upon application to the superior court by any interested person showing good cause.” OCGA § 53-12-176 a 2. OCGA § 53-12-2 4 defines an “interested person” as a trustee, beneficiary, or any other person having an interest in or claim against the trust. This meaning, as it relates to particular persons, may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purposes of and matter involved in any proceeding. Appellant is not a trustee or a beneficiary of the trust. Nevertheless, she urges that she is an “interested person” within the meaning of OCGA § 53-12-2 4 because she has “an interest in or claim against the trust” resulting from her routine provision of funds for the support of the children. Appellant asserts that these payments represent “advances” by her of sums that the trust owes to the children, for which she is entitled to seek reimbursement from the trust.
