corporate entity of the trust as a result of modifications to the CBAs that affect retiree benefits. Rather, the board attempts to assert the rights of the retirees. The board of trustees is not a party to the CBAs, an assignee of a party to the contracts, or a third-party beneficiary of the CBAs. Simply stated, the board of trustees is not vested with, nor does the board own, a cause of action with respect to the city’s alleged breach of contract regarding retiree benefits provided in the pertinent CBAs. Just as trust beneficiaries may not enforce rights owned by the trust, the trust through its board of trustees may not enforce contract rights of the beneficiaries who are determined outside the terms of the trust. See In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust, 300 Mich App at 356-357 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the board of trustees is not
holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that attempted conveyance of remainder interest in a trust was invalid because the spendthrift provision prohibited beneficiary from making any binding commitment of principal or income during the life of the trust holding that the trust remaindermen had a sufficient interest to intervene in an action by the trust executors for a tax refund holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust