On May 20, 2026, the Ohio House unanimously passed Substitute House Bill 446 (HB 446), a wide-ranging proposal addressing Ohio trust, probate, fiduciary, and estate-administration law. As of this writing, the bill is pending in the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee. It has not yet passed the Senate and is not yet Ohio law.
Among other changes, HB 446 would revise rules governing nonresident estate fiduciaries, powers of attorney, claims involving estates, and several trust administration issues. Its most substantial trust-law component is the proposed Ohio Trust Protector and Directed Trust Act, which would create a detailed statutory framework for trust protectors and directed trusts.
Ohio Law Already Recognizes Protector-Like Roles
HB 446 would not introduce the concept of a trust protector to Ohio for the first time. Since 2013, Ohio Revised Code Section 5808.08 has expressly allowed a trust to give a trustee or another person the power to direct the modification or termination of the trust. That statute also provides that, unless the trust says otherwise, a nonbeneficiary holding a power to direct is presumptively a fiduciary who must act in good faith with regard to the trust’s purposes and the beneficiaries’ interests.
Ohio Revised Code Section 5815.25 likewise already addresses directed-trust arrangements. It generally protects an “excluded fiduciary” from liability for losses resulting from compliance with an authorized direction and relieves that fiduciary from certain investment-review obligations when investment authority has been assigned to someone else.
The important point, therefore, is not that HB 446 would recognize trust protectors for the first time. Rather, it would replace Ohio’s current handful of general rules with a comprehensive operating code governing a protector’s powers, duties, liability, appointment, removal, compensation, communications, and relationship with the trustee.
What Is a Trust Protector?
Under the proposed Act, a “protector” would be a trust officeholder, other than a trustee, who holds a power of direction under the terms of the trust. The definition applies regardless of whether the trust uses the title “protector,” “advisor,” “director,” or something else.
A protector’s role is determined by the trust instrument. HB 446 would not automatically give every protector every power listed in the statute, and it would not add a protector to a trust that does not provide for one. Instead, the Act supplies rules for powers that the trust’s creator chooses to grant.
Powers a Trust Could Grant
Depending on the language of the trust, a protector’s powers could include the authority to:
- Direct trust decisions: issue binding directions concerning investments, administration, or distributions, or approve or veto proposed actions.
- Change trust officeholders: appoint or remove trustees, investment advisors, or other trust officeholders, subject to special rules when the drafting attorney serves as protector.
- Modify the trust: amend provisions to address tax-law changes, preserve favorable tax treatment, or respond to changed beneficiary circumstances.
- Adjust beneficial interests: increase or decrease beneficiary interests, add or remove beneficiaries, or modify powers of appointment if the trust grants that authority.
- Address administrative issues: change the trust’s situs or governing law, make binding interpretations, add or remove administrative powers, or terminate the trust.
These are potentially significant powers. Careful drafting is essential because the trust instrument—not the title “trust protector”—determines which powers the protector actually holds and the standards governing their exercise.
Fiduciary Status and Liability
HB 446 would continue and refine, rather than create, Ohio’s existing fiduciary presumption. Under the proposed Act, a protector would be a fiduciary unless the trust expressly provides otherwise. The trust could also make a protector a fiduciary for some powers but not others, allocate different powers among multiple protectors, and establish different standards of liability for different responsibilities.
When acting as a fiduciary, a protector generally would be subject to the same fiduciary obligations and limitations that would apply to a trustee holding the same power. When acting in an authorized nonfiduciary capacity, the protector generally could act in the protector’s sole and absolute discretion. Even then, however, the trust could not eliminate liability for the protector’s willful misconduct or self-dealing.
The House-passed bill also contains several safeguards. A protector could not use a power of direction to engage in self-dealing, solely benefit the protector apart from permitted compensation, or exculpate a trust officeholder from liability for that officeholder’s willful misconduct. Unless the trust expressly provides otherwise, a protector also could not compel a distribution to or for the protector’s own benefit.
Directed Trusts and Trustee Liability
One of HB 446’s most consequential features is its detailed allocation of responsibility between a protector and the trustee or other officeholder receiving a direction. After actually receiving a trust directive, the officeholder generally must take reasonable steps to implement it. The officeholder may presume that the directive is valid, rely on information provided by the protector, ask for clarification, and require a verbal directive to be put in writing.
The directed officeholder generally would not be liable for implementing or complying with the directive unless the officeholder’s own conduct constitutes willful misconduct. The bill also provides that trustees and protectors generally have no duty to monitor or supervise one another, warn beneficiaries that another officeholder might have acted differently, or second-guess decisions outside their assigned roles. They would, however, have limited duties to share information reasonably related to one another’s powers and responsibilities.
Who Could Serve as Protector?
Generally, any person could serve as protector so long as that person is not concurrently serving as trustee of the same trust. If one instrument creates multiple separate trusts, a person could serve as trustee of one trust and protector of another.
HB 446 would impose additional safeguards when the attorney who prepared or supervised execution of the trust—or a person related to that attorney—is appointed as protector. Unless an exception applies, the attorney would have to make specified disclosures concerning alternative appointees, protector compensation, additional legal fees, and removal powers, and the settlor would sign a separate written acknowledgment. A drafting attorney serving as protector also could not remove a trustee without petitioning a court and showing good cause.
Why Might a Trust Include a Protector?
A protector can be valuable when a trust is expected to continue for many years or hold assets requiring specialized oversight. Depending on the plan, a protector may provide:
- Tax flexibility: authority to respond to future changes in federal or state tax law without requiring a full court proceeding.
- Adaptability: a way to respond to marriages, divorces, births, disabilities, substance-use issues, or other material changes in beneficiary circumstances.
- Administrative continuity: a mechanism to replace an unsuitable trustee, resolve ambiguities, or change the trust’s situs or governing law.
- Specialized decision-making: the ability to assign investment, business, tax, distribution, or family oversight to the person best suited for that responsibility.
A protector is not necessary for every trust. Broad amendment, beneficiary, or removal powers can also create complexity, tax concerns, family conflict, and additional administrative expense. The protector’s identity, powers, fiduciary status, succession, and compensation should therefore be tailored to the particular plan.
What HB 446 Could Mean for Existing Estate Plans
As passed by the House, the proposed Act generally would apply to trusts whenever created if they are wholly or partly administered in Ohio or governed by Ohio law, subject to the trust’s terms and constitutional limitations. That does not mean the Act would insert a protector into every existing trust or grant new powers that the document does not contain.
Because HB 446 remains pending, most clients do not need to make immediate changes solely because of the bill. If it is enacted, however, individuals creating or reviewing long-term trusts may wish to consider whether a carefully designed protector provision would improve flexibility, clarify responsibility, or reduce the need for future court involvement.
At Cavitch, we will continue monitoring HB 446 as it moves through the General Assembly and evaluating how any final legislation may affect both new and existing estate plans.
If you have questions about HB 446, trust protectors, directed trusts, or whether your estate plan should be reviewed, please contact Bradley Somogyi, Esq. at 216.621.7860 or [email protected].