Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog : Florida Probate Litigation, Will Contest Lawyer & Attorney : Juan C. Antúnez : Serving Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Saint Petersburg, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale

TTSI Irrevocable Trust v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1810601 (Fla. 5th DCA May 13, 2011)

Trusts and estates lawyers usually focus on the estate-tax planning benefits of life insurance, especially when used to fund an irrevocable life insurance trust or "ILIT". What we don't often focus on are the non-tax, state law requirements peculiar to life insurance contracts, such as the insurable interest requirement. What makes this ILIT case interesting is that it has nothing to do with taxes. Instead it's all about how an ILIT can fall apart for non-tax reasons if you blow Florida's insurable interest requirement.

Insurable Interest:

Florida codified the insurable interest doctrine for life insurance contracts in F.S. 627.404, which requires that an insurable interest exist at the time the policy is applied for. An insurable interest is established when the purchaser of the policy will benefit more from that person being alive, whether emotionally or financially. The obvious point being that we don't want people buying life insurance contracts then killing the insured to collect on the policy [click here]. Without an insurable interest, a life insurance policy is considered void ab initio.

When an individual purchases a life insurance policy on himself or herself, there is automatically an insurable interest. An insurable interest can also be created under F.S. 627.404 when there is a strong relationship between the purchaser and the insured based on blood, marriage or pecuniary interest.

Case Study:

In this case a life insurance agent purchased a $370,912 life insurance policy on the life of his 85-year-old client. The life insurance was owned by an ILIT of which the life insurance agent and his children were the only beneficiaries. The case revolved around two primary issues:

1. Did insurance agent have an insurable interest in the life of his client?
2. If there was no insurable interest, was life insurance agent entitled to a refund of the premiums paid on the policy?

Under the facts of this case, the anwer to both questions was NO.

[1] Insurable Interest? NO

You can have an insurable interest in a non-family member's life under F.S. 627.404 if the insured is worth more to you alive than dead. Here's how the statute lays out this prong of the insurable interest test:

An individual has an insurable interest in the life, body, and health of another person if such individual has an expectation of a substantial pecuniary advantage through the continued life, health, and safety of that other person and consequent substantial pecuniary loss by reason of the death, injury, or disability of that other person.

Insurance agent argued he satisfied this prong of the insurable interest test because the insured was one of his "key" clients. Here's how the 5th DCA described the trial court's ruling and why this ruling meant the subject life insurance policy was void ab initio.

In January, 2009, TTSI filed a 3–count complaint against ReliaStar for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, and declaratory relief, requesting that the court require ReliaStar to reinstate the policy. ReliaStar answered the complaint and later moved for summary judgment based on the argument that the policy was void ab initio because TTSI never had an insurable interest in Ms. Tennant's life. At the trial level, TTSI argued that Ms. Tennant was a “key client” of Mr. Moses and therefore it had an insurable interest in Ms. Tennant's life. The trial court rejected TTSI's argument and determined that no insurable interest existed. See § 627.404, Fla. Stat. (2004). That ruling is not challenged on appeal.

Where the owner of an insurance policy lacks an insurable interest in the life of the insured, the policy is void ab initio because it is considered a “wagering contract” and contrary to public policy. See, e.g., Knott v. State ex rel. Guar. Income Life Ins. Co., 136 Fla. 184, 186 So. 788, 789 (1939) (“[I]t has been uniformly held that a contract of insurance upon a life in which the insurer has no interest is a pure wager, that gives the insurer a sinister counter-interest in having the life come to an end.”); Lopez v. Life Ins. Co. of America, 406 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“Florida law requires that an individual contracting for insurance on the life of another have an insurable interest ... The obvious purpose of that requirement is to prevent so-called ‘wagering’ contracts.”), approved, 443 So.2d 947 (Fla.1983); Aetna Ins. Co. v. King, 265 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (“The public policy of this state renders an insurance policy invalid when the insured has no insurable interest in the property or the risk insured on the grounds that same constitutes a wagering contract.”); Atkinson v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., No. 8:08–CV–691–T–30TBM, 2009 WL 1458020, at *3 (M.D.Fla. May 26, 2009) (“Florida courts have long held that insurable interest is necessary to the validity of an insurance contract and, if it is lacking, the policy is considered a wagering contract and void ab initio as against public policy.”).

[2] Void Life Insurance Policy = No Refunds

Insurance agent then argued that if the life insurance policy wasn't valid, at the very least he should be entitled to a refund of premiums paid. Strike two: trial court said NO to this too, and the 5th DCA agreed. Here's why:

TTSI argues that notwithstanding the invalidity of the insurance policy, it is still entitled to a refund of the premiums paid. In support thereof, TTSI cites to Gonzalez v. Eagle Ins., Co., 948 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Perlman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 686 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and Diaz v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 650 So.2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) for the proposition that where a policy is rescinded or declared void, a refund of premiums paid, in part or in whole, is required in order to return to the status quo. These cases are readily distinguishable. In each of these cases, a party sought to rescind an insurance contract because of an alleged fraud in the inducement. Rescission is an equitable remedy where the primary obligation is to undo the original transaction and restore the former status of the parties. Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Moreover, rescission is an elective remedy and the party may, but is not obligated to, exercise its right to rescind the transaction. See, e.g., Towers v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 927 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

By contrast, the present case does not involve a voidable contract. Rather, neither party could elect to give effect to the policy at issue because it was void at the outset. Furthermore, as a general rule, contracts that are void as contrary to public policy will not be enforced by the courts and the parties will be left as the court found them. See, e.g., Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Castro v. Sangles, 637 So.2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We see no reason to depart from the general rule where, as in the instant case, the party seeking to enforce the contract is the only party who engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct at the time the contract was entered into. See also Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Little, 119 Ark. 498, 178 S.W. 418 (1915) (where party enters into unlawful contracts for insurance policies on the lives of persons on which it had no insurable interest, contracts are unenforceable and party is not entitled to recover amounts previously paid to insurer).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Marger v. De Rosa, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 252942 (Fla. 2d DCA January 28, 2011)

A joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTWROS) is a type of concurrent estate in which co-owners have a right of survivorship, meaning that if one owner dies, that owner's interest in the property will pass to the surviving owner or owners by operation of law, and avoiding probate. The deceased owner's interest in the property simply evaporates and cannot be inherited by his or her heirs.

Back in 1984 the 2d DCA ruled in Ostyn v. Olympic, 455 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), that if a person owns homestead property as JTWROS, then at the point of death the decedent's interest in his homestead property evaporates, leaving nothing for a surviving spouse to assert homestead rights against. This time around the 2d DCA came to the same conclusion with respect to the decedent's minor children: at the point of death the decedent's interest in his homestead property evaporated, leaving nothing for the minor children to assert homestead rights against. Here's how the 2d DCA explained its ruling:

In 1995, Mr. De Rosa and his mother, Harriet S. De Rosa, purchased a home in Largo, Florida. The warranty deed to the house states that Mr. De Rosa and his mother own it as “joint tenants with full right of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” At the time of the conveyance, Mr. De Rosa had two minor children. When he died intestate in 2008, he had no surviving spouse, but he did have two minor children and one adult child.

Harriet S. De Rosa claimed title to the property when her son died. Mr. Marger forcefully argues that the house should have homestead status for the benefit of the children. We conclude that the trial court correctly applied our precedent in Ostyn v. Olympic, 455 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), in holding that the house was not homestead and became the sole property of Harriet S. De Rosa at the instant of her son's death.

************

Article X, section 4(c), of the Florida Constitution provides that “[t]he homestead shall not be subject to devise if the owner is survived by spouse or minor child.” This language does not restrict the type of interests in real property a person may acquire or how a person may title his or her property. Instead, it restricts a person's attempt to devise property he or she owns when homestead status has attached to that property. Thus, even though Mr. De Rosa had children who were eligible for homestead protection at the time he purchased this property along with his mother, he was free to take the property as a joint tenant with the right of survivorship. In so doing, the property did not become homestead property when he and his mother purchased it. Thus, when Mr. De Rosa died, his interest in the property terminated, and it became the sole property of his mother as the surviving joint tenant without any life estate for the benefit of his children.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reid v. In re Estate of Sonder, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1007137 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar 23, 2011)

The last time I wrote about this case the issue was whether a trustee, acting solely in her capacity as trustee, had standing to bring a trust reformation action under F.S. 736.0415 (Reformation to correct mistakes). Trial court said no, 3d DCA said YES.

After having won the right to bring her trust reformation action, the trustee is now back before the 3d DCA because the same judge who didn't think she had standing subsequently ruled against her on the merits, denying her claim for trust reformation under F.S. 736.0415 . . . even though the uncontroverted evidence of the drafting attorney and the testator's doctor (the only two witnesses to testify) unequivocally stated the trust contained a drafting mistake and the requested reformation was needed to carry out the testator's intent.

Case Study:

In this case the testator wanted the nurse who had cared first for his late wife and then for the testator himself to have the condo he lived in. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough cash left in the estate to satisfy all of the testator's cash gifts or "devises", including a $125,000 gift to the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion. When this happens all gifts of equal priority are supposed to be reduced or "abated" equally. For example, if two people are each supposed to receive $100 and there's only $100 left in the estate, both devises are abated down to $50. Things are more complicated if one of the gifts is real property. In those cases you have to sell the property to abate it.

The order in which devises abate is governed by F.S. 733.805. This complex statute is a classic example of a “rule of construction” applicable to all Florida wills and trusts that is NOT part of the actual text appearing within the document the client signs.

In this case the trustee filed a petition under F.S. 736.0415 asking the trial court to fix a drafting error in the trust agreement. The requested fix would ensure the testator's condo was NOT subject to abatement, so it could be devised intact to the nurse. The trial court said NO, sell the condo, and on appeal the 3d DCA agreed. To make sense of the 3d DCA's ruling you need to read it against the backdrop of classic legal theory: we always presume testators understand and consent to every word in their wills or trusts.

[T]here is no evidence Sonder would not have been capable of understanding the trust as written. In fact, nothing in the record explains why Sonder, an articulate and precise businessman, would have approved the plain and simple trust terms if they did not reflect his intent.

Theory vs. Reality:

Is it fair to assume that a testator reading the "plain and simple" text of his trust agreement would also understand that if years in the future he died with less cash in the bank then he assumed on the date he signed his trust that Florida's rule of abatement (F.S. 733.805) would mean the gift of his condo to his nurse would no longer be effectuated? Of course not.

A lay person cannot be expected to read and "understand" a trust agreement the same way a lawyer with years of experience and specialized training can. So even if we assume a client has read his trust agreement, it is not fair to assume this same client was aware of and consented to any drafting mistakes that may be contained within the "plain and simple" text of the document -- especially if it's an error of "omission" (i.e., attorney accidentally leaves out clause that should have been included in trust agreement handed to client). Here's how the authors of A License to Deceive: Enforcing Contractual Myths Despite Consumer Psychological Realities explain this point as applied to consumer contracts in general:

To understand a contract, or even to know that they should look for certain pieces of information, consumers need some background knowledge. In particular, they need to know how contracts of this type—be they mortgage contracts, rental agreements, life or health insurance policies, etc.—are typically structured, the types of information and agreements that are typically codified in these contracts, and the alternative forms that these agreements can take. Cognitive psychologists call mental data structures that code information of this type “schemas,” and consumers need to have specific schemas to understand a mortgage contract, a rental agreement, a life or health insurance policy, and so forth. When consumers read contracts without this knowledge, they will not necessarily be able to identify when something is unusual or amiss.

Did the dissent get this one right? YES

In her dissent Judge Wells argued the majority got this one wrong and stated she would have granted the requested trust reformation. I found Judge Wells' analysis convincing and agree with her.

Florida's legislature adopted F.S. 736.0415 so judges could re-write trust agreements to correct mistakes. These mistakes go beyond simply fixing "typos". We know this because the statute says a judge can reform a trust agreement even if the text is unambiguous, if the end result is not consistent with the client's intent. For example, failing to account for Florida's statutory abatement statute is a mistake of omission. In order to counter Florida's default abatement rules the drafting attorney would have to add special language to the trust agreement. This is the type of mistake a lay person can't possibly be expected to catch by simply reading the clear text of his trust agreement. The 3d DCA's majority opinion fails to grasp this point. The dissent did not. Here's how Judge Wells explained this statutory construction point, which I believe is the better analysis:

The express purpose of section 736.0415 is to permit reformation of an otherwise clear, unambiguous written trust signed by a settlor where evidence exists that the “plain meaning of the trust instrument” does not evidence the settlor's intent. Thus the fact that this articulate, ninety-three-year-old former businessman signed a document that did not on its face encompass what he wanted is non-determinative.[FN5] The record is that this settlor knew what he wanted, questioned his attorney as to whether the document he signed encompassed that desire, and was repeatedly but incorrectly assured that it did.

Of course, a client is entitled to rely on the skill of his attorney to draft an agreement that encompasses his intent. In this case, the record confirms that this astute but elderly businessman, who was not a lawyer, retained a probate and estate lawyer not only to draft a new will after his wife died, but also to create a trust and then to have that same lawyer revise it at least four times. The record also confirms that between 1998 when the relationship began and 2005 when he died, this settlor frequently wrote to, spoke to, and met with his attorney, both at his home and at his attorney's offices. Most importantly, the record—without contradiction—is that this settlor told his attorney what he wanted, questioned his lawyer as to whether he was getting it, and was repeatedly assured by that lawyer—who himself had no idea that he had not accomplished his client's goals—that the settlor was getting what he wanted.[FN6] Therefore, the fact that this settlor was intelligent and precise, and the trust clear and unambiguous, does not support the instant denial of reformation under section 736 .0415 of the Florida Statutes.

***************************

[FN5]. As the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 12.1 (2003), confirms, execution of a document, following review by a settler, should, for a number of reasons, carry no conclusive effect:

l. Donor's signature after having read document does not bar remedy. Proof that the donor read the document or had the opportunity to read the document before signing it does not preclude an order of reformation or the imposition of a constructive trust. The English Law Reform Committee, in recommending the adoption of a reformation doctrine for wills, stated well the rationale for this position:

We have also considered whether any special significance ought to be given to cases in which the will has been read over to the testator, perhaps with explanation, and expressly approved by him before execution. In our view it should not. Some testators are inattentive, some find it difficult to understand what their solicitors say and do not like to confess it, and some make little or no attempt to understand. As long as they are assured that the words used carry out their instructions, they are content. Others may follow every word with meticulous attention. It is impossible to generalise, and our view is that reading over is one of the many factors to which the court should pay attention, but that it should have no conclusive effect.

Law Reform Committee, Nineteenth Report: Interpretation of Wills, Cmnd. No. 5301, at 12 (1973).

[FN6]. The question and the testifying attorney's response confirmed the settlor's reliance on his counsel:

Q. This precise, articulate, strong-willed man could read and write English, and as you sit here today you have no reason to say that he didn't understand what you were doing?

A. That's not true. Sir, as I have testified over and over, Mr. Sonder told me what he wanted and he depended on me to put it in the correct document and phrase it correctly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link