4th DCA: Can you challenge a settlor's removal of funds from her own revocable trust on undue influence grounds?

MacIntyre, ex rel. Wedrall Trust v. Wedell, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1393375 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2009)

In Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that - as a matter of law - you can't challenge a settlor's removal of funds from her revocable trust on undue influence grounds.  In the Genova case the settlor's withdrawal of funds was challenged while the settlor was still alive. In this case the settlor was dead, so the question became whether the Genova rule applies even after the settlor has died. The 4th DCA said YES based on the following reasoning:

[T]he Genova decision itself plainly suggests the availability of an undue influence challenge to the settlor's revocation of his or her revocable trust should not turn upon whether the action is brought when the settlor is alive or deceased. Genova reached the supreme court as a consequence of the conflict between this court's decision in [Genova v. Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County, 433 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)] and the Second District's decision in Hoffman v. Kohns, 385 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In Genova, the settlor of the trust was alive, the settlor herself was attempting to revoke the trust, and the co-trustee bank refused to act on her attempted revocation. In Hoffman, the action challenging the decedent's revocation of the trust was brought by a would-have-been beneficiary of the trust after the settlor died. The Second District relied upon “undue influence” to disaffirm the decedent's revocation of the trust. The supreme court expressly disapproved this result in Hoffman after writing that “the principle of undue influence has no place in determining whether a competent settlor can revoke a revocable trust.” 460 So.2d at 896.

In sum, we hold that, as a consequence of Genova, even after the settlor's death, the settlor's revocation of her revocable trust during her lifetime is not subject to challenge on the ground that the revocation was the product of undue influence. Thus, having considered all issues raised, we affirm the dismissal, with prejudice, of the “undue influence” claim.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.flprobatelitigation.com/admin/trackback/136271
Comments (2) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Steve Riley - June 1, 2009 11:06 AM

Great analysis of complicated issue. The question becomes for us as attorneys what do we do when confronted with this type of problem? Try and declare the settlor mentally disabled through the trust? File a guardianship petition? This case powerfully says a settlor can do what they want, but so can someone who unduly gets their ear.

Juan Antunez - June 2, 2009 8:05 AM

Steve - I think this case means you need to focus on the gift element of the asset transfer and challenge it on that basis. Patrick Lannon's 2008 Fl Bar Journal article, "Challenging Inter Vivos Transfers Procured by Undue Influence: Factors to Consider," did a good job of summarizing what little Florida law there is on this issue.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.