Thank you for your reply. I would thank you for refraining from using vulgar language. You asked for the law, here is the law and it does not say "I have rights to protect the beneficiary's rights" it says exactly what I said above. 3B:31-62. Powers to Direct Investment Functions. a. When one or more persons are given authority by the terms of a governing instrument to direct, consent to or disapprove a fiduciary's actual or proposed investment decisions, such persons shall be considered to be investment advisers and fiduciaries when exercising such authority unless the governing instrument otherwise provides. b. If a governing instrument provides that a fiduciary is to follow the direction of an investment adviser, and the fiduciary acts in accordance with such a direction, then except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the fiduciary so directed, the fiduciary shall not be liable for any loss resulting directly or indirectly from any such act. c. If a governing instrument provides that a fiduciary is to make decisions with the consent of an investment adviser, then except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the fiduciary, the fiduciary shall not be liable for any loss resulting directly or indirectly from any act taken or omitted as a result of such investment adviser's failure to provide such consent after having been requested to do so by the fiduciary. d. For purposes of this section, "investment decision" means with respect to any investment, the retention, purchase, sale, exchange, tender or other transaction affecting the ownership thereof or rights therein and with respect to nonpublicly traded investments, the valuation thereof, and an adviser with authority with respect to such decisions is an investment adviser. e. Whenever a governing instrument provides that a fiduciary is to follow the direction of an investment adviser with respect to investment decisions, then, except to the extent that the governing instrument provides otherwise, the fiduciary shall have no duty to: (1) Monitor the conduct of the investment adviser; (2) Provide advice to the investment adviser or consult with the investment adviser; or (3) Communicate with or warn or apprise any beneficiary or third party concerning instances in which the fiduciary would or might have exercised the fiduciary's own discretion in a manner different from the manner directed by the investment adviser. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the actions of the fiduciary pertaining to matters within the scope of the investment adviser's authority, such as confirming that the investment adviser's directions have been carried out and recording and reporting actions taken at the investment adviser's direction, shall be presumed to be administrative actions taken by the fiduciary solely to allow the fiduciary to perform those duties assigned to the fiduciary under the governing instrument. Such administrative actions shall not be deemed to constitute an undertaking by the fiduciary to monitor the investment adviser or otherwise participate in actions within the scope of the investment adviser's authority.
Unless you prove, as I said above, the move was negligent, meaning not a reasonable business decision, just because she moved the money to somewhere else is not ground to remove her. Also, the law does not say she has to justify the move to the beneficiary. So whatever some other lawyer on her told you, I disagree because of what the statute above states.
FURTHERMORE, just because someone tells you what you do not like to hear and another attorney here told you just what you wanted to hear does not make the attorney who told you what you wanted to hear right and the one telling you what you dislike wrong to the point where you should personally attack and curse them. I did not make up the above statute and you can see it right there where it says she has the right to make the move and it does not say she has to give you proof of why she made the move, the NJ legislature wrote that not me.