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

SPCA Wildlife Care Center v. Abraham, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 6183491 (Fla 4th DCA Dec 14, 2011)

We all know charities are struggling to stay afloat these days, which means they're asserting themselves in court to a degree unheard of a generation ago (a topic of frequent discussion on this blog, click here). In the linked-to case above several charities, including the SPCA Wildlife Care Center (a Broward County animal shelter affiliated with the Humane Society), found themselves unexpectedly pushed into a corner by a probate court's insistence on adjudicating an issue no one asked it to rule on (lesson learned: always expect the unexpected when setting foot in a courtroom).

The question before the 4th DCA in the linked-to case above was whether a person's vaguely worded testamentary gift to charity can be enforced even if the named charity doesn't exist or the testatrix's charitable intent isn't worded as specifically as usually required for testamentary bequests. The trial court said NO. On appeal, the 4th DCA said YES, siding with the charity and reversing the trial court's decision based on the "cy-près" doctrine.

"Cy-près" Doctrine:

"Cy-près" is an old Norman French term meaning "as near as possible" or "as near as may be." When the original objective of the settlor or the testator becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to perform, the cy-près doctrine allows a court to amend the terms of a charitable trust as closely as possible to the original intention of the testator or settlor to prevent the trust from failing. For example, in Jackson v. Phillips, (1867) 96 Mass. 539, the testator bequeathed to trustees money to be used to "create a public sentiment that will put an end to negro slavery in this country." After slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the funds were applied cy-près to the "use of necessitous persons of African descent in the city of Boston and its vicinity."

Although unstated in the link-to 4th DCA opinion, the "cy-près" doctrine has been codified in Florida as part of our Trust Code at F.S. 736.0413. This provision is loosely based on section 413 of the Uniform Trust Code.

Case Study:

In the linked-to case above the decedent, Mary Ericson, executed a will that created a trust for the life-time benefit of her close friend, Emma Brown. Upon Ms. Brown's death, the trust's remaining assets were to be distributed to the "International Wildlife Society.” This is all fine, except there's no such thing as the "International Wildlife Society.” So does the charitable bequest fail?

According to Ms. Brown, “it was the intent of the decedent, Mary Ericson, to have the trust assets distributed to a local Broward County, Florida benevolent animal organization which would attempt to aid and care for animals and not consider destruction of animals except as a last resort.” Ms. Brown further attested that the decedent “often spoke of the Humane Society [of] Broward County.”

When the trust was brought before the court for clarification, several charities were notified and given an opportunity to file responses. One of these charities, the SPCA Wildlife Care Center, filed a response asserting that the assets of the testamentary trust should be distributed to it based on the cy-près doctrine. For some unexplained reason the trial court took it upon itself to simply rule the trust's residuary bequest was vague, and thus "failed". In other words, NO charity gets anything. What?! That logic may apply to non-charitable bequests, but not to charities. That's what the cy pres doctrine is all about; fixing vague charitable bequests. Fortunately, the 4th DCA "got it," reversing the trial court's order based on the following analysis.

The cy pres doctrine is the principle that equity will [a] make specific a general charitable intent of a settlor, and will, [b] when an original specific intent becomes impossible or impracticable to fulfill, substitute another plan of administration which is believed to approach the original scheme as closely as possible. Christian Herald Ass'n v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 40 So.2d 563, 568 (Fla .1949). The doctrine is often applied where the named beneficiary is a corporation or institution that has ceased to exist at the time of the testator's death. See, e.g., Lewis v. Gaillard, 61 Fla. 819, 842–43, 56 So. 281, 288 (1911) (applying the cy pres doctrine and holding that the Florida State College for Women was entitled to receive income from the testator's estate, even though the testator's will named the college's predecessor institution, West Florida Seminary, as the beneficiary); Christian Herald, 40 So.2d at 568 (holding where testator devised property to dissolved charitable corporation, the successor in interest of the dissolved corporation became entitled to such property under the cy pres doctrine). Florida courts have held that “the misnomer of a devisee will not cause the devise to fail where the identity of the devisee can be identified with certainty.” Humana, Inc. v. Estate of Scheying, 483 So.2d 113, 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The cy pres doctrine, however, does not apply when the provisions of the will can be carried out, such as where the will provides an alternative that can be performed. See Jewish Guild for the Blind v. First Nat'l Bank in St. Petersburg, 226 So.2d 414, 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); see also Sheldon v. Powell, 99 Fla. 782, 794, 128 So. 258, 263 (1930).

In the present case, the trial court erred in sua sponte determining that the residue of the testamentary trust would pass by intestacy instead of to a charitable organization for the benefit of animals. The hearing was not scheduled as an evidentiary hearing, and the only extrinsic evidence in the record on the issue of the decedent's testamentary intent consists of the affidavits of the income beneficiary and the attorney who prepared the will. Those would suggest that the court could fashion an alternative plan to effectuate the intent of the testator, where the testator's intent to provide for a charitable bequest to animals, and not to benefit any relatives or other parties, was express. Thus, there was not any evidentiary support for the trial court's conclusion that the residuary clause in Article Six, Paragraph C, of the will should fail.

From the language of the will and the affidavits in the record, it appears that the decedent had a general charitable intent for the residue of her testamentary trust to pass to a charitable organization for the benefit of animals. Even if it cannot be determined which organization the testator had in mind, the interested parties should have the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate that the cy pres doctrine should apply and permit distribution to a claimant or claimants which can fulfill the original intent of the bequest as closely as possible. Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

 

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

Darian v. Weymouth, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 5554786 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 16, 2011)

James Hughes and Martha Mayfield were married in 1999. They both had children from prior marriages. Prior to getting married, they entered into a prenuptial agreement. The terms of that prenuptial agreement may or may not have addressed testamentary gifts. The 4th DCA doesn't tell us. Anyway, Mr. Hughes subsequently executed a revocable trust that richly provided for Mrs. Hughes. According to the 4th DCA:

Upon his death, Martha would receive the family home in Florida, the country home in North Carolina, a sum of one million dollars, the contents of the residences, and various other items of personal property.

The couple was tragically murdered on September 3, 2004 by Thomas Kleingartner, Mrs. Hughes's adopted son from a prior marriage. Both died as a result of gunshot wounds to the head. Click here, here and here for more on this terrible crime and the ensuing criminal trial.

Because the coroner was unable to determine which spouse predeceased the other, pursuant to F.S. 732.601(1) the probate court deemed their deaths to be simultaneous and entered an order to that effect in the probate of Mr. Hughes' estate. Accordingly, Mr. Hughes' property was to be disposed of as if he survived Mrs. Hughes.

The order of death wouldn't have mattered in this case if F.S. 736.1106(2) had applied (the antilapse statute applicable to Florida trusts). Under that statute, Mrs. Hughes' heirs would have inherited her share of Mr. Hughes' estate, regardless of who survived who. However, this particular trust fell between the cracks of Florida's current and prior antilapse statute, thus the much harsher common law rule applied.

First, we note that the common law controls this case. Section 736.1106(2), Florida Statutes, Florida's antilapse statute, applies only to trusts which became irrevocable on or after July 1, 2009. Section 737.6035(2)(c), Florida Statutes, Florida's previous antilapse statute, applied only to trusts executed on or after June 12, 2003. The James E. Hughes Living Trust was executed in August of 2000 and became irrevocable in September of 2004. Thus, neither statute controls.

At common law, lapse occurs when the beneficiary or the devisee under the trust predeceases the grantor, invalidating the gift. The gift would instead revert to the residuary estate or be granted under the law of intestate succession. Bottom line, Mrs. Hughes' heirs get nothing under the common law rule.

Mrs. Hughes heirs tried to salvage their claim to Mr. Hughes' estate by claiming that her share of Mr. Hughes' revocable trust had somehow vested at the time Mr. Hughes executed the document. There was a lot of money at stake here, so you can see why Mrs. Hughes' heirs would take a shot at making this argument . . . and at the trial court level it actually worked!? Not surprisingly, the 4th DCA saw things differently and reversed, again leaving Mrs. Hughes' heirs with nothing.

In Florida, the creation of a living trust, standing alone, is not an event which vests the interests provided by a trust agreement. Travis et. Al. v. Ashton et al., 156 Fla. 529, 23 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla.1945) (holding that beneficiary of trust deed who predeceased grantors did not receive a vested interest at time of trust creation. Where element of futurity was annexed to substance of gift rather than enjoyment of it, vesting was suspended and the gift was “contingent .”); Brundage v. Bank of Am., 996 So.2d 877, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that the settlor of a revocable trust, of which he is the sole beneficiary until death, may change or revoke the trust at any time); Fla. Nat'l. Bank of Palm Beach Cty. v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984) (stating that beneficiaries of revocable living trust do not come into possession of trust property until the death of the settlor, and even then their interest is contingent upon the settlor not exercising the power to revoke). A beneficiary's interest in a trust vests upon the death of the settlor. Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. 106, 107 (Fla.1925).

In this case, no sufficient event existed to vest Mrs. Hughes' interest in the Trust prior to her husband's death. In Travis, the Florida Supreme Court held that an intended beneficiary's interest is suspended during the life of the grantor. 23 So.2d at 726. The intended beneficiary's interest lapses should the beneficiary predecease the grantor. Id. Mr. Hughes was the sole trustee and beneficiary under the Trust during his life. Mrs. Hughes was among the contingent residual beneficiaries whose interest came into creation only upon the death of Mr. Hughes and who were entitled to distribution of the then remaining corpus of the trust. Because it was judicially determined that Mrs. Hughes predeceased her husband, her interest in the Trust lapsed upon her death.

Lesson learned?

When a couple dies in a car accident or due to some other tragic event, it can be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine who died first, since they both died within moments of each other. It usually doesn't matter. In this case, it mattered big time for Mrs. Hughes' heirs. If they knew then what they know now, Mrs. Hughes' heirs might have pushed the coroner a little harder to make a call on who died first, or maybe hired their own independent expert to make the determination. Coroner and medical examiner offices have been especially hard hit by budget cuts; you don't have to accept their conclusions as gospel [click here]. In hindsight, the 2004 coroner's report in this case, which was probably viewed as a non-event at the time, was outcome determinative. No one said practicing law was easy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Melican v. Parker, 289 Ga. 420 (May 31, 2011)

There are all sorts of reasons for why probate practice is interesting. Consider, for example, that even the simplest one-page will is governed by a complex body of law, developed over centuries, that appears nowhere within the four corners of the document, yet can have dramatic consequences. In Florida, this body of law, known as “rules of construction” (i.e., rules that apply when the will is silent, but which can be varied by the terms of the will), has been largely codified in Part VI of chapter 732 of Florida's Probate Code. 

The rule of construction at issue in the linked-to case is Florida's "nonademption" statute (F.S.732.606).

Ademption is a common law rule of construction used to determine what happens when a specific item of property gifted under a will is no longer in the testator's estate at the time of his death. In those cases the specific gift is considered "adeemed," and the gift fails. For example, if testator "X" signs a will specifically devising his condominium located in Marco Island to "Y," but later sells the Marco Island condominium and buys a replacement condominium for him and Y to enjoy in the Florida Keys, Y gets nothing: the will said Marco Island condo', not condo' in the Keys.

The ademption rule was simple, but often ended up disinheriting people in a way that seemed unfair and contrary to what testators would have wanted. The more modern view, reflected in section 2‑606 of the Uniform Probate Code, reverses the common law rule in certain cases.

For example, does Y get anything if X signed a sales contract to sell the Marco Island condominium before his death, but the sale didn't close until after he died? That's what happened in the linked-to Georgia Supreme Court case applying Florida law. Under the common law rule, Y gets nothing. Applying the UPC's modern view, Florida's nonademption statute completely changes this outcome: Y may not get the condominium, but when the deal closes, she gets the cash. Here's why:

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 732.606(2)(a) (the “nonademption statute”), “[a] specific devisee has the right to the remaining specifically devised property and ... [a]ny balance of the purchase price owing from a purchaser to the testator at death because of sale of the property.” Therefore, where, as here, a balance is owed to a testator from the sale of his or her real property located in Florida, the proceeds from this sale are due to the specific devisee who would have otherwise inherited the real property under the will. Id. See also Ott v. Ott, 418 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla.App.1982) (“The original intent of the [nonademption statute] ... was to prevent ademption in all cases involving sale ... of specifically devised assets when the testator's death occurred before the proceeds of the sale ... had been paid to the testator”) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). Accordingly, Melican, as the specific devisee of the Florida condominium under Strother's Will, was entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the condominium after Strother's death, as these proceeds had not yet been paid to Strother before he died. Fla. Stat. § 732.606(2)(a).

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Basile v. Aldrich, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 3696309 (Fla. 1st DCA August 23, 2011)

At one time—under the Florida statute of wills of 1828, in force until the Revised Statutes took effect on June 13, 1892—a will was ineffective to devise Florida real estate that the testator had no interest in at the time the will was executed. Since June 13, 1892, however, a will containing a residuary clause has been effective to transfer after-acquired property. This rule is currently codified in F.S. 732.6005(2). Here's what the statute says; I've italicized the crucial text at the heart of the linked-to case above.

732.6005 Rules of construction and intention.—

(1) The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator’s dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in this part shall apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will.

(2) Subject to the foregoing, a will is construed to pass all property which the testator owns at death, including property acquired after the execution of the will.

Based on this statute the trial court in the linked-to case above ruled that a will devising certain specifically identified property to certain specifically named beneficiaries -- but containing no residuary clause -- resulted in the specific devisees taking everything. Wrong answer, says the 1st DCA.

The problem - a Will with NO residuary clause.

A residuary estate, in the law of wills, is any portion of the testator's estate that is not specifically devised to someone in the will, or any property that is part of such a specific devise that fails. It is also known as a residual estate or simply residue. The will may identify the taker of the residuary estate through a residuary clause or residuary bequest. The person identified in such a clause is called the residuary taker, residuary beneficiary, or residuary legatee. If no such clause is present, however, the residuary estate will pass to the testator's heirs by intestacy. That's what happened in this case.

Here's how the 1st DCA described the will at issue in this case:

On April 5, 2004, Ms. Aldrich wrote her will on an “E–Z Legal Form.” In Article III, entitled “Bequests,” just after the form's pre-printed language “direct[ing] that after payment of all my just debts, my property be bequeathed in the manner following,” she hand wrote instructions directing that all of the following “possessions listed” go to her sister, Mary Jane Eaton:

—House, contents, lot at 150 SW Garden Street, Keystone Heights FL 32656

—Fidelity Rollover IRA 162–583405 (800–544–6565)

—United Defense Life Insurance (800–247–2196)

—Automobile Chevy Tracker, 2CNBE 13c916952909

—All bank accounts at M & S Bank 2226448, 264679, 0900020314 (352–473–7275).

Ann also wrote: “If Mary Jane Eaton dies before I do, I leave all listed to James Michael Aldrich, 2250 S. Palmetto 114 S Daytona FL 32119.” Containing no other distributive provisions, the will was duly signed and witnessed.

Three years later, Ms. Eaton did die before Ann, becoming her benefactor instead of her beneficiary. Ms. Eaton left cash and land in Putnam County to Ms. Aldrich, who deposited the cash she inherited from Ms. Eaton in an account she opened for the purpose with Fidelity Investments. On October 9, 2009, Ann Dunn Aldrich herself passed away, never having revised her will to dispose of the inheritance she had received from her sister.

NO residuary clause = intestacy.

Whenever possible, courts will construe wills in a way that disposes of all of the testator's estate and avoids intestacy. The Florida Probate Code section that's supposed to make this all happen is F.S. 732.6005. When in doubt, this statute authorizes a court to interpret or "construe" an ambiguous will in a way that avoids intestacy. But if the will simply doesn't say what to do with the testator's residuary estate, the result is partial intestacy; F.S. 732.6005 does NOT authorize a court to fill a blank slate with its best guess as to what the decedent would have wanted. The trial court in this case failed to grasp that distinction. Wrong answer, says the 1st DCA. Here's why:

We hold that, where a will fails to dispose of all of a decedent's property (Ann's will has no residuary clause), “partial intestacy” results; and that property Ann owned at the time of her death not disposed of by her will passes to her heirs, in the manner prescribed by sections 732.101–.111, Florida Statutes (2009). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

*****

Only subsection (1) of section 732.6005 applies to the dispute here: If discernible from the will, the testator's intent must be given effect, unless doing so would be illegal or otherwise contrary to public policy. . . . Subsection (2) of section 732.6005 does not apply because it is expressly “[s]ubject to” subsection (1), which provides: “The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator's dispositions.” § 732.6005(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The language of Ann's will is unambiguous and its intent is clear.

Ms. Aldrich devised her house and lot in Keystone Heights, and bequeathed its contents, together with other personal property that the will identifies with painstaking specificity. Her will plainly evinces an intent to dispose of each particular item of property the will names. Equally plainly, the will manifests no intent to dispose of [her residuary estate], property the will does not allude to in any way.

*****

Synecdoche is a rhetorical device, not a judicial doctrine. “[I]f a will disposes of only one small specific item out of a large and valuable estate, it would be absurd to hold that the devisee of that one small item is entitled to the remainder of the estate.” Matter of Estate of Allen, 150 Mich.App. 413, 388 N.W.2d 705, 707 (1986). The same logic applies in the present case.

*****

A testator may choose to dispose of only a portion of his or her estate by will, allowing the balance to descend under the laws of intestate succession. . . . While the will does not dispose of all the property Ann Dunn Aldrich owned at her death, this circumstance is hardly unique to her or her estate and does not contravene any rule of law or public policy. Nor does the will reflect any mistake on her part.

*****

Section 732.6005(2) is, after all, a rule of construction. Rules of construction are to be resorted to only if the testator's intent cannot be ascertained from the will itself.  . . . The presumption against partial intestacy is designed to resolve ambiguities where they exist. The presumption should not be applied to create ambiguities in a will where none would otherwise exist.

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

Common sense, and hard earned experience, tell us that clients can sign perfectly clear and unambiguous wills . . .  that are disasters waiting to happen. Why? Because even the simplest one-page will is governed by a complex body of law that appears nowhere within the four corners of the document, but can have devastating unintended consequences on even the simplest estate plan. 

This body of law, known as [1] “rules of construction” (i.e., rules that apply when the will is silent, but which can be varied by the terms of the will; see Part VI of chapter 732 of Florida's Probate Code for the rules of construction governing Florida wills) and the [2] "rules of law” (i.e., rules that cannot be modified by the terms of the will, such as Florida's strict homestead laws [see here]), is found in Florida's common law, Probate Code, Principal and Income Act and related accounting law, and "read into" every will signed in Florida . . .  even the $5-special you bought at Home Depot.

What can a family do when confronted by one of these time bombs? Until recently, not much. Courts had their hands tied; even if there was clear and convincing evidence that the unambiguous text of the will resulted in an outcome directly contrary to the testator's intent, Florida common law prohibited reformation of the will to fix the mistake.

Legislative Fix:

As explained in Florida House of Representative's Staff Analysis of CS/HB 325, effecitve July 1, 2011, we now have new legislation dramatically expanding the scope of judicial Will reformation actions to fix these mistakes.

The bill creates s. 732.615, F.S., to provide that a court may reform a will even if it is unambiguous. A person challenging the will would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that both the testator's intent and the terms of the will were affected by a mistake of fact or law. A court may look to extrinsic evidence in these circumstances even if the evidence contradicts the plain meaning of the will.

In the example of [Azcunce v. Estate of Azcunce, 586 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)], the changes provided in the bill may have allowed the court to look at the extrinsic evidence regarding the deceased's intent to not disinherit his daughter even though the will was unambiguous and the extrinsic evidence contradicted the plain meaning of the will.

The bill creates s. 732.616, F.S., to provide that any interested person may petition to modify a testator's will in order to achieve the testator's tax objectives, provided such modification is not contrary to the testator's probable intent. This change would allow a party to seek modification of the will in order to achieve a tax advantage intended by the testator so long as the modification is not contrary to the testator's probable intent.

The bill creates s. 733.1061, F.S., to provide that in the newly created actions under s. 732.615 and s. 732.616, F.S., "the court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorneys fees and guardian ad litem fees." A chancery action for attorneys fees and costs is an action in equity that is similar to a prevailing party provision for attorneys fees and costs, but equity does give the court discretion if the circumstances demand. The new section would give the court the ability to charge attorneys fees and costs directly to a party. The bill also gives the court the discretion to tax the fees and costs against a party's interest in the estate or other property of the party that is not part of the estate.

For an excellent discussion of Florida's prior common law governing will-reformation actions and how this new legislation brings us into line with modern national trends, you'll want to read WILL REFORMATION LEGISLATION by Brian Felcoski (prepared with the assistance of Elisa F. Lucchi and Jon Scuderi). Here's an excerpt:

Restatement Third Property: Many states have adopted the approach in the Restatement Third which allows: (1) construction of wills where appropriate, and (2) reformation of wills for unilateral mistake by the testator (or the scrivener as the testator’s agent).

Restatement Third Property § 12.1: Allows for extrinsic evidence so long as there are safeguards to prevent against mistaken evidence through a strict burden of proof.

Rationale of Rest. 3d Prop. §12.1: The rationale is that admitting evidence outside the four corners of a will is inherently suspect but, possibly correct. Rest. 3d Prop. – WDT, §12.1, comment b. However, the law deals with evidence that is inherently suspect but possibly correct on one of two ways, namely: (1) to exclude evidence; or (2) to consider extrinsic evidence with safeguards to prevent against mistaken evidence through a strict burden of proof. Id.

a. The drafters of the Restatement Third believed that the consideration of extrinsic evidence was the only option which would give effect to the testator’s intent. Id. at comment b.

b. The standard of proof must be clear and convincing evidence in order to impose a heightened sense of responsibility on the trier of fact. Id. at comment e.

c. If the grounds are established by clear and convincing evidence, an order of reformation may be supported in addition to other equitable relief such as a constructive trust. Id. at comment f.

d. To support the remedy of reformation, the extrinsic evidence must establish by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that a mistake of fact or law affected the expression, inclusion, or omission of specific terms of the document, and (2) what the donor's actual intention was in a case of mistake in expression or what the donor's actual intention would have been in a case of mistake in the inducement. Id. at comment g.

e. A petition of reformation may be brought before or after the donor’s death. Id.

f. Unless otherwise stated, a judicial order of reformation will relate back to alter the text at the date of execution. Id. at comment f. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Lorenzo v. Medina, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 4483470 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov 10, 2010)

At common law, lapse occurs when the beneficiary or the "devisee" under a will predeceases the testator, invalidating the gift. The gift would instead revert to the residuary estate or be granted under the law of intestate succession. Florida enacted F.S. 732.603, an anti-lapse statute, to ameliorate the potentially harsh effects of this common law rule. Rather than lapsing, gifts covered by the statute go to a pre-deceased beneficiary's descendants.

Florida's anti-lapse statute does not fix all lapsed gifts, only those made to immediate family members. Gifts to neighbors, friends, and in-laws do not benefit from this statute.

At issue in the linked-to case was a gift to the testatrix's sister-in-law, Juana R. Medina, who had predeceased the testatrix. The trial court ruled the sister-in-law's gift was saved by F.S. 732.603, thus resulting in her 50% share of the estate going to her children, the testatrix's niece and nephew. This may have seemed like an equitable outcome, but it failed as a matter of law. Gifts to in-laws are NOT saved by Florida's anti-lapse statute.

As a matter of common law, when a will provides for a bequest to a person who predeceases the testator, the gift lapses. Tubbs v. Teeple, 388 So.2d 239, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“When a legatee under a will predeceases the benefactor, the gift lapses.”). The potentially harsh effects of this common law rule are ameliorated to an extent by the operation of statute. When the predeceased devisee is a descendant of the testator's grandparents, section 732.603 will “save” the lapsed gift by creating a substitute gift in the devisee's descendants. § 732.603(1). Because section 732.603 is in derogation of the common law, we must strictly construe its provisions. Drafts v. Drafts, 114 So.2d 473, 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (“The antilapse statute being directly in derogation of ... the common law, the statute must be strictly construed.”).

*****

Pursuant to the common law rule outlined above, the bequest lapsed. And because Juana R. Medina is not a descendant of the Testator's grandparents, the niece and nephew cannot invoke the operation of section 732.603(1) to “save” the bequest and provide them with a substitute gift. Thus, we conclude that the niece and nephew are not entitled to the Testator's lapsed bequest. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Timmons v. Ingraham, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 2217637 (Fla. 5th DCA Jun 04, 2010)

As reported here by the WSJ, "When it comes to blended families, estate planning can be a special kind of hell." A corollary to that observation: blended families are always at risk for probate litigation. Yes, I said always! This case is an example of the type of probate litigation blended families can find themselves in and why these cases need to be treated like ticking time bombs both at the estate-planning phase and in the probate context.

Blended Family Red Flag: Stepmother as Beneficiary of Dad's Marital Trust = Estate Planning Trouble:

In 1999 "Frank Sr." died married to "Myrtle". Frank Sr. had two adopted children from a prior marriage, and Myrtle had four children of her own, whom Frank Sr. had never adopted. Frank Sr's will provided that at his death all assets would go in trust for Myrtle for life, and at her death everything would go to the couple's six children in equal shares. Frank Sr's will also gave Myrtle a "power of appointment" that could be exercised only in favor of his "descendants." Simple plan; the sort of thing traditional families put in place every day and no one ever contests. But this was a blended family, which means things are never simple.

Fast forward to 2007: Stepmother Myrtle is now attempting to use her power of appointment to disinherit her stepchildren (Frank Sr's two adopted children) in favor of her own four children. Think about these facts: we're not talking about Myrtle's personal assets here, this case is about Myrtle's attempt to give 100% of her former husband's estate to her children and 0% to Frank Sr's children. Yeah, not exactly a pretty picture.

Legal Definition: Stepchildren ≠ Descendants

The technical issue at play in this case was whether the term "descendants" should be interpreted or "construed" to include Frank Jr's stepchildren, thus allowing Myrtle to disinherit Frank Sr's children. Myrtle won at the trial court level, but lost on appeal. Here's how the 5th DCA explained its ruling:

In determining the intent of the settlor, a technical term used in a trust instrument should be accorded its legal definition, unless obviously used by the settlor in a different sense. Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 406 (Fla.1978). “Lineal descendant” or “descendant” is defined to mean “a person in any generational level down the applicable individual's descending line.” It includes children, grandchildren, or more remote descendants but excludes collateral heirs. § 731.201(9), Fla. Stat. (2007). Adopted children come within the definition of lineal descendants. Lewis v. Green, 389 So.2d 235, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The co-trustees acknowledge that step-children do not ordinarily fall within the definition of “lineal descendants,” but contend that by expressly expanding the definition of “children” to include his step-children for purposes of his will, Frank Sr. similarly intended to expand the definition of “lineal descendants” to include his step-children and their descendants.” We reject this argument.

While Frank Sr.'s will expressly provided for a different definition of the term “children” than its common or legal definition, no similar attempt was made to modify the common or legal definition of the term “lineal descendants.” The lack of an attempt to redefine “lineal descendant” reflects an intent to have the term interpreted in accordance with its legal definition. Furthermore, Frank Sr. used the term “lineal descendants” on only two other occasions in his will. In one paragraph, Frank Sr. bequested his personal property, in the event Myrtle predeceased him, “to my children who survive me, or if none of my children survive me, then to their lineal descendants, per stirpes.” In a different paragraph, Frank Sr. bequested certain shares of stock “to my son Frank Timmons, Jr., or his lineal descendants per stirpes.” Thus, in both of these instances, the term “lineal descendants” was used in a manner consistent with its legal definition. Finally, there is no language elsewhere in the will reflecting an intent on the part of Frank Sr. to grant Myrtle the power to disinherit his children in favor of her own children.

As previously observed, a technical term used in a trust instrument should be accorded its legal definition unless obviously used by the settlor in a different sense. Knauer. Here, we believe that Frank Sr.'s testamentary document did not reflect an intent (and certainly not an “obvious” one) to expand the definition of lineal descendants to include step-children. Therefore, Myrtle's purported exercise of the limited power of appointment in favor of her natural children was invalid.

Lessons learned?

There's an obvious practice pointer here for estate planners: terms such as "children" and "descendants" are so crucial, they need to be defined in every will or trust. And if you're working with a blended family, it's imperative that you do so. Below is the standard form of "family" definitional clause used at my firm. This is the very first clause of every will and trust we draft.

I am married to MARY DOE, who is referred to as "my wife" in this Will. My wife and I are both citizens of the United States. My wife has been previously married and has two children from that marriage, CHILD 1 and CHILD 2, whom I have not adopted. References to "my wife's children" mean only her children named above. I have been previously married and have two children from that marriage, ADULT CHILD #1 and ADULT CHILD #2. References to "my children" mean only my children named above, as well as any other children of mine born or adopted after the execution of this Will; references to "my descendants" mean my children and their descendants.

If Frank Sr's will had had this kind of clause, tailored to reflect his exact wishes, this litigation could have probably been avoided.

Will and trust construction disputes are one of the most common forms of estate litigation, and - not surprisingly - a recurring theme on this blog. If you unpack the 5th DCA's opinion, you get a good example of how to argue a will-construction case. It's a convincing mix of law and logic, and certainly worth holding on to for the next time you find yourself litigating a similar case.

[1] 5th DCA: When in doubt, technical terms must be used in accordance with their legal definitions.

In this case, Frank Sr's will did NOT redefine the word "descendants". Ergo: you have to apply the statutory definition (which includes adoptees, but excludes step-children).

[2] 5th DCA: When in doubt, terms should be used consistently within the same document.

In this case the word "descendants" was used 3 times in Frank Sr's will. Once in the clause being litigated, then an additional 2 times in unrelated clauses. In the 2 uncontested clauses, the word descendants was used in accordance with its legal definition. Ergo: the legal definition of descendants should also apply to the contested clause as well.

[3] 5th DCA: Documents should be read in their entirety. When in doubt, terms should be used in a way that conforms with the rest of the estate plan.

In this case the 5th DCA noted: "[T]here is no language elsewhere in the will reflecting an intent on the part of Frank Sr. to grant Myrtle the power to disinherit his children in favor of her own children." Ergo: the word descendants should NOT be construed in a way that disinherits Frank Sr's children.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pajares v. Donahue, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 934101 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar 17, 2010)

A will provision devising Florida homestead property is valid ONLY if BOTH elements of the following two-part test are satisfied:

1. The homestead was subject to devise. In other words, the restrictions on the devise of homestead contained in Sect. 4(c), Article X, of the Florida Constitution and F.S. 732.401, F.S. 732.4015 do NOT apply. (When in doubt as to this point, refer to Kelley's Homestead Paradigm.)
2. The will contains a specific power directing that the homestead property be sold and the sales proceeds distributed to the estate's beneficiaries.

The will at the heart of the linked-to opinion wasn't exactly a picture of clarity (thus the litigation). What's interesting about this case is the lengths to which first a probate court and then the 4th DCA went to carry out the decedent's intent, as clearly set forth in her will, even though the will lacked the sort of explicit homestead-sales clause discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in McKean v. Warburton and quoted by the 4th DCA below.

First, here's the less-than-clear text at issue in this case. The homestead property is a home in Delray Beach whose address is 202 N.W. 18 Street, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. To make sense of this opinion you'll need to focus on all references to that property:

Article One of the will stated that Kuhnreich's husband was deceased and she had no children.

Article Three, entitled “Specific Bequests of Real and/or Personal Property,” concerned two parcels of real property. First, a West Palm Beach condominium unit was devised outright to two named devisees. Second, “[f]rom the sale of: 202 N.W. 18 Street[,] Delray Beach, Florida 33444,” the will bequeathed specific dollar amounts to five persons: Robert Kuhnreich, $5,000; “Lane Abbot, AKA Orlando Abad,” $10,000; “David Mears, AKA David Abad,” $10,000; “Connie Abad, AKA Conchita Abad,” $30,000; and Maria De Cuena, $5,000. Article Three ended with this sentence: “In the event that I do not possess or own any property listed above on the date of my death, the bequest of that property shall lapse.”

Article Four was entitled “Homestead or Primary Residence.” It stated:

I will, devise and bequeath all my interest in my homestead or primary residence, if I own a homestead or primary residence on the date of my death that passes through this Will, to see above primary residence. If I name more than one person, they are to receive the property [X] equally, after all estate taxes, debts are satisfied.

And here's how the 4th DCA got to the "right" conclusion (if by "right" we mean: carrying out the decedent's testamentary intent vs. strictly enforcing Florida's restrictions on the devise of homestead property):

Where the decedent has no surviving spouse or minor children, homestead property may “pass as a general asset of the estate by a specific devise.” McKean, 919 So.2d at 345. “[W]hen the testator specifies in the will that the homestead is to be sold and the proceeds are to be divided[,] ... the homestead loses its ‘protected’ status.” Id. at 346-47 (citation omitted). “Thus, where the will directs that the homestead be sold and the proceeds added to the estate, those proceeds are applied to satisfy the specific, general, and residual devises, in that order.” Id. at 347 (citations omitted).

Reading Articles Three and Four together, we find that Kuhnreich specified that the Delray Beach property was to be sold and the proceeds divided according to the provisions of the will. With the italicized and underlined language, “see above primary residence,” Article Four specifically references the treatment of the residence in Article Three. Article Three indicates that the specific bequests will be paid from “the sale” of the Delray Beach home. In fact, the will provides for the Article Three bequests only through a sale of the real property: the will provides that if the decedent did not own one of the two properties on the date of her death, then “the bequest of that property shall lapse.” Article Four does not expressly say that the Delray Beach Property is to pass to Pajares and Donahue free of claims of the decedent's creditors, a hallmark of homestead property. See In re Estate of Hamel, 821 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Rather the devise is subject to “debts.” The will does not therefore demonstrate an intent to preserve the advantages of homestead for the property.

For these reasons, we affirm the order of the circuit court, which harmonized Articles Three and Four of the will.

Lesson learned?

If a client walks into your office with case involving freely-devisable homestead and a will that at first blush appears to lack the type of explicit homestead-sales clause discussed in McKean v. Warburton, don't be too quick to throw in the towel. Scour the will for language that could be read to imply the decedent intended or expected the homestead property would have to be sold. If you're dealing with freely-devisable homestead property, a decedent's testamentary intent shouldn't be frustrated simply because his or her will wasn't perfectly drafted. That's the argument, anyway. It worked in this case, it might work in yours.

Bonus:

Amy B. Beller of Beller Smith, P.L., in Boca Raton, Florida, was on the winning side of this case both at the trial-court level and on appeal. In this interview I invited Amy to share some of the lessons she drew from this case with the rest of us and she was kind enough to accept.  You can also download her appellate brief: APPELLEES' ANSWER BRIEF

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Burgess v. Prince, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 199422 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 22, 2010)

Access to trust funds is usually a zero-sum game: If I pay trust funds to one party, there's less money for everyone else. We usually think of this problem in terms of conflicting claims between trust beneficiaries: if I pay $$ to beneficiary "A," there's less $$ for beneficiary "B."

So is there a way to boost payments to beneficiary A without diminishing beneficiary B's share of the trust? Yes!

One option is to "grow the pie," so there's more to go around for everyone [click here]. Another option is to pay beneficiary A to do some of the trust-administration work being done by third parties. As long as beneficiary A can do the job, this transaction is an economic wash as far as beneficiary B is concerned. So why not "keep the money in the family" by paying a trust beneficiary - rather than an unrelated third party - to do the work? Professionals who take the time to understand this opportunity can become heroes to their trust-beneficiary clients. The linked-to opinion is an example of this second option in action.

Trust beneficiary as Business Manager:

In the linked-to opinion the trust owned Salt Creek Art Works, a large art studio and gallery. One of the trust's beneficiaries was serving as trustee of the trust and business manager for Salt Creek Art Works. The trust agreement provided that a beneficiary may not receive compensation for serving as trustee, but there was nothing stopping her from getting paid for the work she did as business manager. In fact, the trust agreement specifically authorized a trustee/beneficiary to hire herself to do any work the trust required.

When the trustee/beneficiary was removed as trustee she was also stripped of her business-manager fees. On appeal the 2d DCA reversed this ruling by simply applying the clear text of the trust agreement.

Section 6.2 of the Trust provides that a beneficiary may not receive compensation for serving as Trustee:

Any Trustee, whether an individual or corporate trustee, who may serve under the Trust shall be entitled to receive compensation for its services as Trustee in accordance with its schedule of rates in effect at the time the services are rendered, including minimum fees and additional compensation for special investment and interests in a closely-held business. Any Trustee who is also a beneficiary under the Trust shall serve without compensation.

(Emphasis added.) Our record demonstrates, however, that Ms. Burgess did not receive compensation for her service as Trustee. Rather, she received a modest monthly payment from the Trust for operating the ongoing business of Salt Creek Art Works. The payments she received were not contrary to the terms of the Trust. Indeed, the Trust allows compensation to a Trustee serving in other capacities. Section 6.4 empowers the Trustee:

[T]o employ accountants, actuaries, appraisers, attorneys, brokers, building contractors, custodians, investment managers, realtors, and other agents including any Trustee, if such employment be deemed necessary or desirable and to pay reasonable compensation for their services without diminution of any fiduciary's commissions....

(Emphasis added.)

Finally, section 6.5 allows the Trustee to compensate a beneficiary for business management duties:

To determine in his or her discretion the manner and extent of his or her active participation in the business, and to delegate all or any part of his or her power to supervise and operate to such person or persons as he or she may select, including any associate, partner, officer or employee of the business.

To hire and discharge officers and employees, fix their compensation and define their duties; and to employ, compensate and discharge agents, attorneys, consultants, accountants and such other representatives as the Trustee may deem appropriate; including the right to employ any beneficiary or individual fiduciary in any capacity.

(Emphasis added.)

Relying on the plain language of the Trust document, we must conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that Ms. Burgess could not be compensated for managing Salt Creek Art Works.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chin v. Estate of Chin, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 2382326 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug 05, 2009)

Will construction litigation is supposed to be all about figuring out what the dry words on a piece of paper called a "will" are supposed to mean. We can't ask the testator what the words mean, he's dead. So "we" (i.e., lawyers sitting as judges or representing clients) do what we've been trained to do: we rely on a body of law that sets up a series of analytical tools and evidentiary presumptions aimed at hopefully delivering the most just result possible for all concerned. Florida's rich body of law governing all aspects of how testamentary documents are supposed to be construed is a frequent topic of discussion on this blog [click here, here, here, here, here].

But by focusing too much on the "law" can we end up missing the forest for the trees?

Will Construction Litigation as Morality Play:

The lesson to draw from the linked-to case is that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that no matter what the law may say, at the end of the day we're all human, which means we're all swayed by an inherent sense of justice and fair play. The result that seems most "just" and "fair" always has a better chance of persuading the one-person jury that decides every Florida probate case: your probate judge; this is true no matter what the law may say is the correct doctrinal result. Here's how this point was made in an ABA Journal piece entitled When the Judge Is the Jury:

"The first lawyer to make the facts come alive in a bench trial has a tremendous advantage. .  .  . 

“You are talking directly to a fellow human being about the ‘gut stuff’ of life. What’s right and what’s wrong. Fair and unfair. Just and unjust. This is all about the power of a story to grab the heart of a fellow human—not something that is going to be measured for its adequacy by a professor who is checking to see if you found all the possible legal theories in the case. You already did that weeks ago with your pleadings.

“Remember, the power of persuasion lies in creating a sense of injustice. Judges—like juries—want to right wrongs. If you represent the plaintiff, show—don’t tell—your jury how the defendant hurt the plaintiff. And if you represent the defendant, your point is, it’s wrong for him to pay for what he didn’t do.

“Facts—not arguments, legal conclusions or academic pedantry—are what have the power to persuade."

With this (long!) introduction in mind, read how the 3d DCA summarized the key facts of the linked-to case and the rationale underlying its ruling.

On April 12, 1989, Adolph Chin drafted a Will in Jamaica. When he died in 1997, he co-owned property in Miami-Dade County as tenants in common with his sister, Mary Chin. Adolph and Mary both lived on this property. David Chin, Adolph's son, was named personal representative of Adolph's estate. . . .

Paragraph seven of the Will states:

I direct that property held by me in co-ownership with my brother the said Earl Anthony Chin and with my sister, Mary Victoria Chin, shall not be sold as long as my said brother or sister desires to occupy same.

David Chin argues that paragraph seven only applies to property which was co-owned by Adolph, Earl, and Mary concurrently. Mary argues that Adolph devised a life estate to each sibling with whom he co-owned property. If a court finds the language of a will ambiguous, “[t]he Testator's intent is the guiding and dominating factor in the construction of a Will.” See In re Roger's Estate, 180 So.2d 167, 170 (1965). When interpreting ambiguous provisions of a will, courts may look upon the situation of the parties, such as ties and affection between the testator and his or her legatees. Id.

On de novo review, we agree with the trial court's finding that paragraph seven grants a life estate to Mary Chin. Adolph shared a separate residence with each sibling. The trial court found this to be strong evidence that he did not have the intent to dispossess his siblings of their homes after his death. Additionally, to construe paragraph seven to apply only if there were co-ownership of property by all three individuals asks the Court to adopt the notion that Adolph Chin inserted a restriction into his Will with full knowledge that it had no meaning. This Court simply cannot adopt this explanation.

Thus, we agree with the lower court that Mary Chin has a life estate in the property and we affirm the lower court's Amended Order of Summary Administration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Littell v. Law Firm Of Trinkle, Moody, Swanson, Byrd and Colton, 2009 WL 2749666 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Sep 01, 2009)

The linked-to opinion is the culmination of litigation involving a "Joint Trust" created by a husband and wife in 1992 that has played itself out in two different courts for over 8 years.

Stage One: Probate Court Trust-Construction Action: Littell Loses

Stage one of the litigation was a trust-construction action before a probate judge in which the court ruled that the Joint Trust was NOT "amendable" after the first spouse died. This issue isn't as simple as it sounds, as demonstrated in another joint-trust revocation case I wrote about earlier this year [click here].

In the trust-construction action the drafting estate planning attorney (Byrd) testified that he had been instructed to draft the Joint Trust in a way that would allow it to be amended after the first spouse's death. In other words, based on the probate court's ruling, he apparently admitted to a drafting mistake. The second estate planning attorney involved in the matter (Stuart) testified that she thought the Joint Trust was amendable, and advised her client accordingly. In other words, again based on the probate court's ruling, she apparently admitted to having mistakenly interpreted the trust agreement. Both admissions are significant in light of the results of the second action.

Stage Two: Malpractice Action v. Estate Planning Attorneys: Littell Loses Again:

The linked-to opinion involves this second stage of the litigation. In this action Plaintiff Littell argued that if the Joint Trust agreement was NOT amendable, then he should be able to sue the estate planning attorneys for malpractice. The trial court judge ruled against him, dismissing his claims against both of the estate planning attorneys.

[1] Lack of Standing = No Claim v. Byrd:

The ruling that will probably be of most interest to Florida estate planners is this one. Here the court ruled that an heir that is NOT mentioned in the operative will or trust agreement (a "disinherited" heir), does NOT have standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue the estate planning attorney for malpractice.

Whether any heir ever has standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue an estate planning attorney for malpractice was unclear under Florida law, until the 4th DCA's 2007 ruling in the Gunster case [click here]. But what if the heir is NOT a named beneficiary of the operative will or trust agreement, does he still have standing to sue? Earlier this year I wrote about a California appellate opinion that ruled there was NO standing in those cases [click here]. The 11th Circuit ruled the same way in this case, concluding that under Florida law a plaintiff that is NOT a named beneficiary of the operative will or trust agreement, does NOT have standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue the estate planning attorney for malpractice.

Applying [Florida] law to the case at hand, we conclude that Littell does not have third-party beneficiary standing to bring a malpractice action against Byrd and Trinkle Moody. Florida's narrowly defined exception to the privity requirement limits an attorney's professional liability to foreseeable plaintiffs, namely, to clients and to those persons that the client apparently intended to be third party beneficiaries of the attorney's services. See Rosenstone, 560 So.2d at 1230 (limiting privity exception to “one who [the attorney] knows is the intended beneficiary of his services”) (emphasis added); Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 512 So.2d at 193 (noting that attorney's professional liability is limited to clients and to those who can demonstrate that the apparent intent of the client in engaging the services of the lawyer was to benefit that third-party); see also Machata v. Seidman & Seidman, 644 So.2d 114 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla .1995) (liability of an accountant for negligence is expanded beyond persons in privity to include those persons the accountant knows intend to rely on the accountant's opinion for a specific purpose).  .  .  .  In this case, Littell points to no evidence indicating that he was an apparent intended beneficiary of the services Byrd provided to the Hermans or that the Hermans engaged Byrd intending to benefit Littell. At best, Littell was only an incidental third-party beneficiary of Byrd's services and the “Florida courts have refused to expand [the privity] exception to include incidental third-party beneficiaries.” Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 512 So.2d at 194. [Because Littell was not named in the documents drafted by Byrd], Littell was not an apparent third-party beneficiary of Byrd's services. For this reason, the district court properly found that Littell has no standing to bring a malpractice action against Byrd and Trinkle Moody.

[2] Do Over Ruling = No Claim v. Stuart: "Heads I win, tails you lose"

This is the leg of the case that must have driven the plaintiff (and his attorney) crazy. With respect to the malpractice claim against the second estate planning attorney (Stuart), the court ruled there was no claim because this court interpreted the Joint Trust exactly opposite to the way the same instrument had been interpreted by the probate court. In the probate court the plaintiff had lost because the judge concluded the Joint Trust was NOT amendable after the first spouse's death. This time around the plaintiff lost - AGAIN - because the court concluded the Joint Trust WAS amendable after the first spouse's death, so the estate planning attorney (Stuart) did nothing wrong; ergo: malpractice action dismissed.

Littell also asserts that the district court erred in finding that the Trust was amendable by the sole surviving settlor and that therefore Stuart and Gray Robinson were not negligent in executing amendments to the Trust.FN2

FN2. Although the probate court reached the opposite conclusion, the district court properly found that because Stuart and Gray Robinson were not parties in the probate case, the probate court's decision has no preclusive effect in this case. See Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 (Fla.1984) (noting that issue preclusion applies only when the identical parties wish to relitigate issues that were actually litigated as necessary and material issues in a prior action).

Lesson learned? THINK "JOINDER OF PARTIES"

It's unfair to second guess anyone after 8 years of litigation. Viewed in retrospect, no one is perfect; and perfection isn't the standard we're supposed to be judged by. However, looking forward, what lessons can trusts and estates litigators draw from this case? I was especially struck by the "heads I lose, tails you win" nature of this case. It's OK for a judge to rule against you; smart, reasonable minds can disagree on how to interpret a trust agreement. It happens every day. But it's not OK if two different judges rule in exactly opposite ways on the same trust agreement: and you lose no matter what.

One way to avoid the risk of inconsistent results among different judges adjudicating the same trust agreement is to make sure all related claims are tried in one lawsuit before the same judge. That way, no matter how the judge rules, everyone has to live with that ruling for all purposes. How do you do that? Florida's joinder-of-parties rule. Under Fl. Civ. Pro. Rule 1.210(a), any person can be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff and any person can, at any time, be made a party if that person's presence is necessary or proper to a complete determination of the cause. If the same judge had adjudicated both the trust-construction action and the malpractice action, each side would have won one and lost one, but no one would have been stuck with the "heads I lose, tails you win" outcome the plaintiff walked away with in this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Doe v. Doe, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 2841190 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep 04, 2009)

As DNA testing becomes evermore widespread, Florida probate judges and practitioners alike can expect they'll have to grapple with its implications with greater frequency. For example, does DNA testing trump a prior paternity adjudication for purposes of intestate succession? In a 2007 opinion (Glover v. Miller) the 4th DCA said "NO" [click here]. (For an excellent discussion of DNA testing within the context of divorce proceedings see The Presumptions of Privette: Have They Perished with the Coming of Daniel and Disestablishment of Paternity.)

This time around - in a case of first impression - the question was whether DNA testing trumps traditional trust construction doctrine as applied to the phrase "descendants by blood". In the linked-to opinion the 2d DCA said "NO".

Believe it or not, for trust construction purposes someone can be your "blood relative," even if DNA testing proves conclusively that you're not biologically related to that person. Does this make sense? Yes, if your primary goal is to figure out the settlor's testamentary intent at the time he signed his trust agreement. When construing a trust agreement it's what was going on in the settlor's head at the time he signed the document that matters most, not the empirically-verifiable facts in existence years later at the time the trust is being administered.

Two points addressed in the linked-to opinion warrant special attention.

1.  Do you think we can get a court order compelling a DNA test?

If you're a probate lawyer and you haven't had someone ask you this question yet, just wait, sooner or later someone will. And when they do, consider the strong hint given by the 2d DCA on how it would have ruled if someone had given it a chance to block the DNA test compelled in this case:

FN3. Catherine did not seek review by certiorari of the circuit court order directing her to submit to further DNA testing [under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)]. Moreover, Catherine has not challenged the propriety of that order on this appeal. In any event, the testing order is moot. The testing has already occurred, and the results have been disclosed to the parties and to the court. For these reasons, we express no opinion on the propriety of the circuit court's order for compulsory DNA testing. Cf. Contino v. Estate of Contino, 714 So.2d 1210, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that the personal representative of an intestate estate was not entitled to an order for the DNA testing of a child born into wedlock to establish whether the decedent was the child's biological father).

2.  The "lessons of legal history" vs. DNA testing: Who wins?

In the linked-to opinion the trustees argued that if DNA testing proves that a person isn't biologically related to the settlor, then she's automatically disqualified from being considered one of the settlor's "descendants by blood." The 2d DCA does a great job of deconstructing that argument and coming to its apparently counter-intuitive conclusion in a way that should make sense to most trusts and estates lawyers.

The Trustees' argument overlooks the meaning of the term “descendants by blood” and similar expressions as they have been used historically in wills and trusts in connection with the limitation of class gifts to persons related to the testator, the settlor, or some other designated person. Before the advent of modern genetic testing in the last twenty to thirty years, a challenge such as the one the Trustees have brought against Catherine-challenging the paternity of a child born in wedlock-would have been all but unthinkable. The legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest rebuttable presumptions known to the law. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 16 So.2d 163, 163-64 (Fla.1944). In addition to facing a very high level of proof, the challenger would have found it difficult-if not impossible-to assemble the evidence necessary to prove such a claim. See Chris W. Altenbernd, Quasi-Marital Children: The Common Law's Failure in Privette and Daniel Calls for Statutory Reform, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 219, 236 (1999). Only with the relatively recent development of genetic testing has the proof necessary to overcome the presumption of legitimacy become generally available. Id. at 237; Mary R. Anderlik, Disestablishment Suits: What Hath Science Wrought?, 4 J. Center for Fams., Child. & Cts. 3, 3-4 (2003).

Of course, the use of terms such as “descendants by blood” and similar expressions to limit class gifts began long before genetic testing became available. Such expressions are terms of art that have been traditionally used-sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully-to limit class gifts to persons related to the testator, settlor, or other designated person by a blood relationship and thus to exclude adopted persons. See, e.g., Papin v. Papin, 445 S.W.2d 350, 352-53 (Mo.1969) (holding that a class gift in a trust to “heirs at law by blood related to the grantor” excluded adopted persons); Fifth Third Bank v. Crosley, 669 N.E.2d 904, 909 (Ohio Ct.Com.Pl.1996) (holding that a trust provision limiting a class gift to the “lawful issue of the blood of the Trustor” excluded adoptees); Trust Agreement of Cyrus D. Jones Dated June 24, 1926, 607 A.2d 265, 270 (Pa.Super.Ct.1992) (holding that a trust agreement limiting a class gift to the “lawful issue of the blood” did not exclude adopted descendants). In the modern era, the trend has been away from a focus on blood relationships and toward treating the adoptee as a full member of his or her adoptive family. See Jan Ellen Rein, Relatives by Blood, Adoption, and Association: Who Should Get What and Why, 37 Vand. L.Rev. 711, 713-17 (1984). However, modern legal forms continue to recognize the traditional use of the “blood” restriction by defining “descendants” to include persons whose relationship to the designated ancestor is by blood or by adoption. See, e.g., 20A Am.Jur. Legal Forms 2d § 266:53, p. 370 (2009) (“Whenever used in this Will, the word “descendants” or the word “issue” shall mean legitimate descendants of whatever degree, including descendants both by blood and by adoption.”). Thus, by expanding the definition of “descendants” to include adoptees, adopted persons may be included within the terms of class gifts to descendants.

The Trustees' expansive reading of Article XVIII's restriction of the trusts' class gifts to “descendants by blood” as requiring genetic testing to determine membership in the class ignores the lessons of legal history. Because the blood restriction came to be used in wills and trusts to exclude adoptees from class gifts long before genetic testing became available, the meaning of these old expressions cannot reasonably be extended beyond the exclusion of adopted persons to disqualify descendants such as Catherine who were not adopted and who would otherwise qualify as a beneficiary of the class gifts but who happen to lack the requisite genetic profile from the settlors.FN5 Thus a proper interpretation of the limitation of the trusts' class gifts to “only children and descendants by blood” does not support the Trustees' argument.FN6

To put it in a nutshell, the trusts' Article XVIII appears in legal instruments, not in a technical paper on genetics. The phrase “descendants by blood” is a legal term of art, not a scientific one. As a legitimate child of one of the settlors' sons, Catherine qualifies as one of the settlors' “descendants by blood.”

*     *     *     *     *

Because Catherine is the legitimate child of her legal father, Chester III, she is, by operation of law, the “blood issue” of Chester III. It follows that she is a “descendant by blood” of the settlors and is within the class of persons entitled to take under the trusts. To paraphrase what another court said in a case involving similar facts, Catherine cannot be Chester III's daughter for only some purposes. See In re Trust Created by Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961, 765 A.2d 746, 759 (N.J.2001). Thus the circuit court erred as a matter of law in determining that Catherine was not a “descendant by blood” of Chester Jr. and Eleanor.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Garcia v. Celestron, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 249211 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 04, 2009)

In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA provides a solid summary of the procedural steps and law governing adjudications of ambiguous wills in Florida. This is a bread-and-butter issue for most probate litigators, so it’s helpful to have an appellate opinion you can whip out for your judge or opposing counsel if anyone needs a quick refresher course on how these cases should be handled.

Step One: The court needs to rule on whether the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous:

We affirm the trial court's ruling that the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous . . . The will left the decedent's house to his widow, and should she predecease him, the property was to be divided among six named family beneficiaries. The will then provides as follows:

I further leave a life estate in said property to my daughter, Mercy Maqueira [Mercy Garcia], so that she may live in and enjoy this property.... Upon her death, the property shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally among those living at the time of my death so named herein.... If Mercy so desires, she may sell this property at anytime and divide the proceeds as above stated.

Step Two: If the will’s ambiguous, you’re entitled to present parole evidence at trial to determine it’s meaning:

The question presented to the trial court was whether the language “so that she may live in and enjoy this property” made the life estate determinable, requiring Mercy to either live in the property or sell it, or whether the term is one of clarification, allowing her to choose whether to live in it or not. The trial court concluded that these terms taken together are ambiguous and took evidence to determine the testator's intent. Based upon the evidence, the trial court concluded that the decedent intended that Mercy be provided with a place for her and her children to live, and that if Mercy did not live in the property, it should be sold and the proceeds equally distributed among the six listed beneficiaries. Evidence adduced at trial revealed that Mercy did not live in the house, but rented it out, and that she had no intent to live there. The trial court ordered the property to be sold because Mercy did not live in it and evidenced no intention to live in it in the future. Mercy Garcia appealed.

We agree with the trial court that the provisions of the will are ambiguous. As such, the trial court correctly received parol evidence in order to resolve the apparently contradictory provisions. See Perkins v. O'Donald, 82 So. 401 (Fla.1919) (holding that parol evidence may be received if the will is in some way ambiguous, in order to ascertain the testator's intent); Harbie v. Falk, 907 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Campbell v. Campbell, 489 So.2d 774, 776-777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); In re Estate of Rice, 406 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The trial court based its findings on competent, substantial evidence, and we thus affirm the final judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Babcock v. Estate of Babcock, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4863088 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 12, 2008)

Any probate lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that reading a person's will is often just the tip of the iceberg. You don't really know how to administer an estate unless you take the decedent's will and run it through Florida's probate code to see what comes out the other end. The results can be surprising.

The linked-to opinion is a good example of how radically altered a will's legal effect can be once it's administered under our probate code. All of the following probate-code rules played a part in this case:

• If you get divorced and forget to revise your will, don't worry, your ex is automatically cut out of your will under F.S.732.507(2).
• If you get married and forget to revise your will to provide for your new spouse, don't worry, he or she is automatically written into your will as a "pretermitted spouse" under F.S. 732.301.
• If you die and leave your spouse nothing but your household effects and a bunch of bills, don't worry, he or she gets to keep this stuff as "exempt property" under F.S. 732.402. However, if you specifically bequest all of this stuff to someone else, then your surviving spouse is out of luck.

Here's an excerpt from the linked-to opinion that manages to weave all of these concepts into three short paragraphs:

Bradford Babcock died leaving a will which provided in Article IV the following bequest:

I devise to my wife, TARA L. BABCOCK, all of my clothing, jewelry, household goods, personal effects, automobiles and all other tangible personal property not otherwise specifically devised herein or pursuant to the written statement or list described in Article Third of this my Last Will and Testament. If my said wife shall not survive me, I devise all of the aforesaid property to my son, BRAXTON D. BABCOCK, if he shall be living at the time of my death.

At the time of his death, he was divorced from Tara and married to Tawn Babcock, from whom he was separated. Because of the divorce, those provisions affecting Tara became void. § 732.507(2), Fla. Stat. Thus, the will would be construed as a bequest to Braxton of the property contained in Article IV. Tawn was not mentioned in the will and constituted a pretermitted spouse. § 732.301, Fla. Stat.

Tawn filed a motion to determine exempt property pursuant to section 732.402(6), Florida Statutes, which provides that the surviving spouse has the right to a share of the “exempt property,” of the estate, which includes certain “[h]ousehold furniture,” “furnishings,” “appliances,” and “automobiles.” § 732.402(1), (2), Fla. Stat. However, “[p]roperty specifically or demonstratively devised by the decedent's will to any devisee shall not be included in exempt property.” § 732.402(5), Fla. Stat.

So what's a specific bequest?

As a first step all anyone had to do in this case was read the probate code, but once they ran up against the specific-bequest exception to the exempt-property statute, they got sucked into Florida's common law. Here's how the 4th DCA summarized the law on this point and how it should be applied to the specific facts of this case.

“A specific legacy is a gift by will of property which is particularly designated and which is to be satisfied only by the receipt of the particular property described.” In re Estate of Udell, 482 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Park Lake Presbyterian Church v. Henry's Estate, 106 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (“[A] specific legacy is a gift of a particular thing or of a specified part of the testator's estate so described as to be capable of distinguishment from all others of the same kind.”). On the other hand, “[a] general legacy or devise is one which does not direct the delivery of any particular property; is not limited to any particular asset; and may be satisfied out of the general assets belonging to the estate of testator and not otherwise disposed of in the will.” In re Estate of Udell, 482 So.2d at 460. See also Park Lake, 106 So.2d at 217.

Applying the above definitions to this case, the clothing, jewelry, and automobiles mentioned in the will are clearly specific bequests because they are particularly designated and can be satisfied only by receipt of the particular property. Stated differently, they are specific things or a specific part of the testator's estate. They are not general bequests because they cannot be satisfied out of the general assets of the testator's estate. The bequest in the instant case is similar to that in In re Estate of Gilbert, 585 So.2d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), where the Second District found that a bequest of “all of her jewelry, clothing, and feminine personalty ... was a specific bequest of identifiable property.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bryan v. Dethlefs, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 1425499 (Fla. 3d DCA May 16, 2007)

In this case the beneficiary of his predeceased grandfather's trust died before the trust assets were fully distributed to him.  The subsequent litigation revolved around this question: in order to vest under the trust, does the following trust clause require the beneficiary to be living at the time of the settlor's death, or upon full distribution of his inheritance under the trust?

Distribution to Grandson: Upon my death, the then balance of principal and accumulated income remaining in the trust fund shall be distributed to my Grandson, ROBERT R. BIZZELL, if he is living at the time of distribution. (emphasis added).

Miami-Dade County Probate Judge Arthur L. Rothenberg ruled the vesting event was the settlor's date of death, and the 3d DCA affirmed.

Lesson learned: when in doubt, it's vested - NOT contingent

Rules of construction can be useful tools because they tip the scales in favor of a certain interpretation when the subject text is less than crystal clear.  That's what happened in this case.  The following excerpt from the linked-to opinion provides useful guidance with respect to the rules of construction applicable if there is any doubt that an inheritance vests immediately or is contingent upon some future event:

[T]he law favors the early vesting of estates. Lumbert v. Estate of Carter, 867 So.2d 1175, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(citing Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. 106 (1925)). As this Court stated in Estate of Rice v. Greenberg, 406 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), any doubt as to whether an interest is vested or contingent should be resolved in favor of vesting:


This Court is committed to the doctrine that remainders vest on the death of the testator or at the earliest date possible unless there is a clear intent expressed to postpone the time of vesting. It is also settled that in case of doubt as to whether a remainder is vested or contingent, the doubt should be resolved in favor of its vesting if possible, but these general rules all give way to the cardinal one that a will must be construed so as to give effect to the intent of the testator.

406 So.2d at 473 (quoting Krissoff v. First Nat. Bank of Tampa, 32 So.2d 315 (Fla.1947)). Accordingly, no estate should be held to be contingent “unless very decided terms are used” and “unless there is a clear intent to postpone the vesting.” Sorrels, 89 Fla. at 467, 105 So. at 110. Indeed, “[t]he presumption that a legacy was intended to be vested applies with far greater force, where a testator is making provision for a child or grandchild, than where the gift is to a stranger or to a collateral relative.” Sorrels, 89 Fla. at 467, 105 So. at 110.

Finally, if a trust vests at the settlor's death, then “the death of the beneficiary before it becomes payable does not cause the legacy or devise to lapse.” Sorrels, 89 Fla. at 465, 105 So. at 110. Similarly, where a settlor intends a trust to vest upon the testator's death, benefits accrue to the beneficiaries from the time of the death, not the subsequent time that the trust was funded. In re Bowen's Will, 240 So.2d 318, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Morgan v. Cornell, --- So.2d ----, 2006 WL 2987107, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2632 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct 20, 2006)

Estate planning and probate litigation are two sides of the same coin.  The planner needs to understand the underlying substantive property rights being conveyed and how to draft documents that accurately describe what those property rights are and to whom they are being conveyed.  In the event of a dispute, the litigator needs to understand the same: what are the underlying substantive property rights being disputed and does the operative document effectuate a legally enforceable conveyance.

That's why this case is equally instructive to the planner and the litigator.  The litigation revolved around whether the decedent had validly devised a life estate in two properties he owned as tenants-in-common with his girlfriend.  The properties at issue were a home in Naples, Florida and a second home in New Hampshire (i.e., the amount in controversy likely exceeded seven figures).  The decedent's children argued -- and won at the probate-court level - that the devise was invalid and thus girlfriend got nothing.  Girlfriend argued the opposite . . .  and won where it really counted, before the 2d DCA, which reversed the probate court's order.

Here's how the 2d DCA articulated the issue on appeal:

The specific devises at issue state:

If I own the home [in New Hampshire/Florida] at my death, I leave said home and real estate together with the contents therein to Julia H. Morgan for the term of her life, subject to the obligation to pay all real estate taxes, upkeep, insurance and ordinary costs of ownership, with a remainder interest in fee simple as Tenants in Common to her children ···, per stirpes.

**********

The personal representative of Mr. Cornell's estate, his daughter Elizabeth L. Cornell, filed a petition seeking construction of these conditional devises, alleging that the condition-“If I own the home”-is unclear in extent, nature, and meaning. On one hand, the word “own” could be read to mean “to the extent I own the home,” so that the specific devises would be effective for whatever interest the testator possessed at his death. On the other hand, the word “own” could be interpreted more strictly, so that the condition would be fulfilled only if the testator were the sole owner of each home at the time of his death. If the second interpretation were operative, the condition would fail and the testator's interest in the homes would become part of the residuary estate and pass to his three children.

The 2d DCA rejected the children's interpretation -- and the probate court's order -- by holding that the word "ownership" was a broad enough term to encompass a tenants-in-common interest.  This is the part of the 2d DCA's opinion that is most instructive to future planners/drafters and litigators because it articulates in clear, unambiguous language what a "tenants-in-common" interest is and how it can be devised:

The parties in this case agree that Mr. Cornell and Ms. Morgan owned the real properties as tenants in common. When two persons own property as tenants in common,

A and B each owns in his own name, and of his own right, one-half of Blackacre···· It means that each owns separately one-half of the total ownership···· Each is entitled to share with the other the possession of the whole parcel of land. Each may transfer his undivided one-half interest as he wishes so long as the transfer does not impair the possessory rights of the other tenant in common. Each may transfer his undivided one-half interest by will···· The central characteristic of a tenancy in common is simply that each tenant is deemed to own by himself, with most of the attributes of independent ownership, a physically undivided part of the entire parcel.

Thomas F. Bergin & Paul G. Haskell, Preface to Estates in Land & Future Interests 58-59 (1966). The estate of a tenant in common is both inheritable and devisable. Tyler v. Johnson, 61 Fla. 730, 55 So. 870 (1911).

As a tenant in common, Mr. Cornell owned a physically undivided part of each entire parcel in New Hampshire and in Naples. Without question, Mr. Cornell did “own” the property at the time of his death; the ownership condition was fulfilled; and each devise validly passed a life estate in his undivided half interest to Ms. Morgan-just as he intended.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Karasek v. William J. Lamping Trust, 2005 WL 2086183 (Fla. 4th DCA August 31, 2005) (Trial Court Reversed)

Precise drafting is the single most effective barrier against costly probate litigation. What makes estate planning documents especially challenging for attorneys is that the careful drafter needs to consider the very real possibility that the Will or Trust he or she drafts today could become a disputed matter decades in the future (or even hundreds of years in the future under Florida's new rule against perpetuities statute, see F.S. § 689.225). That's what happened in this case. A Will that was executed in 1967 became the subject of litigation in 2003 . . . 36 years after the date it was signed!

The 1967 Will contained a "default" clause common to any well drafted Will. Essentially, the document directed that in the event the testator's children predeceased his surviving spouse, upon the death of his surviving spouse the trust corpus was to be distributed to the "heirs" of his deceased children. What was unclear was whether the 1967 definition of heirs was applicable or the 2003 definition of heirs was applicable. The Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that under Florida law the presumption is that the testator intended the term "heirs at law" to be construed under the statutes in existence at the time the Will was executed, i.e., 1967.

The entire dispute could have been avoided if the default clause had stated what law was applicable, as the following example does:

If any property is subject to this article under another provision of this Trust Agreement, the Trustee shall distribute that property to my heirs at law determined under Florida law then in effect as if I had died intestate and unmarried on that date as a resident of Florida.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Rosoff v. Harding, 2005 WL 1163101 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2005) (Trial Court Affirmed)

Sometimes a belts-and-suspenders approach to estate planning is not just overkill, it actually ends up doing more harm than good. In this case "Brother" wanted to look out for his sister. So far, so good. So Bother's Will creates a testamentary trust for Sister's life-time benefit and gives her a testamentary power of appointment over the trust corpus. Again, so far so good. But just in case Sister might be victimized, Brother's Will required that any exercise of Sister's power of appointment within 18 months of her death had to be witnessed by a corporate officer of his Corporate Trustee. In theory, this last clause probably sounded like a good idea. In practice, this belts-and-suspenders approach resulted in unintended consequences that the Fourth DCA characterized as "extremely unfortunate" and "unintentional," but beyond the "court's power to correct."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D664 (Fla. 4 DCA March 9, 2005) (TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED)

Commenting that this case presented an issue of "first impression in Florida," the Fourth DCA affirmed a trial court's refusal to enforce burial instructions in the decedent's Will based on clear and convincing evidence presented by his wife of forty years and others that he had changed his mind since executing his Will. The Fourth DCA held that a testator's body is not considered "property." As such, the general rule of construction found in Probate Code Section 732.6005(2) requiring Wills in Florida to be deemed to pass all property that the testator owns at death does not apply to bodily dispositions. Instead, the 4th DCA formulated the following rule regarding the disposition of a Florida testator's body:

[A] testamentary disposition is not conclusive of the decedent's intent if it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that he intended another disposition of his body.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Lumbert v. Estate of Carter, 867 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 27, 2004) (TRIAL COURT REVERSED)

Molly Joy Carter ("Mom") executed a will on February 23, 1994 that left all of her $1.5 million estate in trust for her only child, Lisa Lumbert ("Daughter"), until Daughter reached certain ages, at which time the trust assets were to be distributed to her outright and free of trust.

Mom died and her will was admitted to probate on August 30, 2000. Fourteen months later Daughter died on October 15, 2001 at age 41. At the time of Daughter's death, most of Mom's $1.5 million estate was still being administered, so only about $100,000 had been transferred to Mom's testamentary trust for Daughter. Mom's brothers and sister argued that Article IV E. of Mom's trust for Daughter should control what happens with the rest of Mom's estate, which would result in most of Mom's estate going to them. Daughter's surviving husband argued that Articles IV D. of Mom's trust should control, which would, not surprisingly, result in most (i.e., two-thirds) of Mom's estate going to him.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link