Will and Trust Contests

Subscribe to Will and Trust Contests via RSS

Perry v. Agnew, 2005 WL 1397427 (Fla. 2d DCA June 15, 2005) (Trial Court Reversed)

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. In this case, an individual trustee working out of his office in Boston, Massachusetts was sued by three beneficiaries, one of whom was a resident of Florida. The trustee moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue under 2004->Ch0737->Section%20203#0737.203″>F.S. § 737.203. Charlotte County Judge Isaac Anderson, Jr. denied the trustee’s motion to dismiss on two grounds, the most interesting of which was based on a finding that the trust’s Florida choice-of-law provision exempted it from the application of 2004->Ch0737->Section%20203#0737.203″>F.S. § 737.203.
Continue Reading Choice-of-law Clause Will Not Override Florida’s Statutory Regime for Designating the Venue of Trust Litigation

McMullin v. Beaver, 2005 WL 1278870 (Fla. 4th DCA June 1, 2005) (Trial Court Reversed) When a trust terminates as of a certain date, it is reasonable to assume that winding up the affairs of that trust may take some time after the termination date. But what if the “winding up” process includes filing a lawsuit after the trust termination date? Indian River Circuit Court Judge Robert A. Hawley ruled that was too much, and granted final summary judgement against the plaintiff trustee, finding that the trustee lacked standing to bring the action because the trust was already terminated. Although unclear from this opinion, apparently the defendants in this case argued that the trustee was attempting to unduly extend the winding up period for the trust by commencing litigation after the trust’s termination date. The Fourth DCA disagreed, and reversed the trial court finding that the trustee did in fact have standing to file his lawsuit after the trust termination date.
Continue Reading Fourth DCA says party being sued does not have the right to complain that a terminated trust’s “winding up” period is being unduly extended by the litigation

Whitener v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 2005 WL 1047268 (Fla. 5th DCA May 6, 2005) (Trial Court Order Quashed) This case involves a single trust divided into two parts. The same trustee for both trusts was First Union National Bank of Florida (“First Union”). One beneficiary sued First Union in Duval County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the First DCA. In the course of the Duval-county litigation, the First DCA ruled that certain documents fell within the crime-fraud exception of the attorney-client privilege, and were thus discoverable. The second beneficiary sued First Union in Seminole County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Fifth DCA. In the course of the Seminole-county litigation, the Fifth DCA ruled in the case cited at the top of this post that the same documents addressed by the First DCA were privileged, and thus due to their previous disclosure, counsel for the Seminole-county litigant was disqualified. Not to be so easily deterred, the Seminole-county litigant simply hired the lawyers involved in the Duval-county litigation and moved forward with her case . . . with the benefit of the “privileged” documents her previous attorneys were disqualified for obtaining.
Continue Reading When two trust beneficiaries sue the same bank-trustee in two different counties . . . then appeal to two different DCAs . . . then obtain conflicting rulings on the same issue . . . well, things get interesting

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 Will Construction Statute Applied to Testamentary Trust