Law And Legal Expert Was Barred From Opining on the Trust Agreement
Posted on January 14, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler
The Plaintiff, Christopher Ayash, is a named beneficiary of the Patricia Louise Ayash Living Trust (“Trust”), created by his late mother (“Grantor”) in 2002. The Trust also named two of the Grantor’s other sons as beneficiaries. The Defendants, David Barnette and Karl Hamm, serve as Trustees.
The Trustees are directed to divide and hold the Trust property for the benefit of the Grantor’s sons, including the Plaintiff, and their descendants. Because the Plaintiff was not fifty-five at the time of the Grantor’s death, the Trustees placed his share in a Non-GST-Exempt Trust. This case is at least the third lawsuit between the parties.
The central question in this lawsuit is simple: Does the First Amendment and Restatement of the Patricia Louise Ayash Living Trust 2002 (u/a/d May 16, 2007) (the “Trust”) require the Defendants, as trustees, to distribute trust shares to a beneficiary when he turns fifty-five?
Christopher Ayash filed a motion to strike the expert opinions of Christopher J. Winton, a lawyer, because “those opinions are legal conclusions that attempt to usurp the Court’s role in construing the trust.”
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Christopher J. Winton has built a highly regarded career in estate planning, business planning, taxation, real estate, and civil litigation.
Winton began his education at the University of Virginia, where he graduated with high distinction in 1982 and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He then continued at the University of Virginia School of Law, completing his J.D. in 1985.
Winton is licensed in both the West Virginia State Bar and the Virginia State Bar. His active involvement includes membership in the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the American Bar Association, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and the Charleston Estate Planning Council. He has also long served on the West Virginia State Bar Probate Committee and became its Chair in 2019, contributing to legislative initiatives in estate and trust law.
Discussion by the Court
The Plaintiff argued that the opinions are inappropriate because Winton
interpreted the meaning and purpose of the Trust Agreement and applied that interpretation to the facts of this case.
Although the Defendants argued that Winton merely applied his specialized knowledge of trust administration, based on his experience as a trust and estate attorney, Winton began both his initial opinion and rebuttal opinion by interpreting the Patricia Louise Ayash Living Trust (“Trust”).
He concluded that “the Non-GST Exempt Trust for the benefit of Christopher Mark Ayash did not terminate when the beneficiary attained the age of 55 but continued under the terms and provisions of the Trust Agreement.”
Applying the West Virginia case law and the West Virginia Uniform Trust Code (UTC), to the facts, he concluded that the Defendants exercised their discretion in good faith, and further concluded in his rebuttal opinion that the Defendants did not breach any of their duties. Winton also concluded that the Defendants were entitled to reasonable commissions and fees for
their services as Trustees.
The Court found that Winton’s opinions should be excluded as inadmissible legal conclusions.
Held
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the testimony of Defendants’ expert Christopher Winton.
Key Takeaway
Winton went far beyond providing specialized knowledge in trust administration by interpreting the Trust and applying that interpretation, as well as West Virginia case law and the UTC, to the facts in this case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Ayash V. Barnette |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv720 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division |
| Order Date: | January 13, 2026 |
