Dennis v. Kline

Dennis v. Kline, 3d DCA, June 19, 2013, 120 So. 3d. 11, 2013 WL 3014115
This case involves a beneficiary of a trust who adopted a 27-year old woman, which impacted who would inherit under a trust created by the beneficiary's father.  In simple terms, the trust involved both a Marital Trust and a Family Trust, which was further divided into Family Trust A and Family Trust B.  While Family Trust B granted the settlor's children the ability to appoint the assets in his or her trust share, Family Trust A constrained the distribution of each child's share to the Settlor's "issue."  The Trust (and the Settlor's will) defined "issue" as "lineal descendants forever," with the provision that "words of relationship in any degree includ[e] legally adopted persons."  

One of the beneficiary's siblings sought a declaratory judgment that would construe the Trust to exclude adult adoptees from becoming qualified beneficiaries as "living issue,” or in the alternative, judicial modification of the Trust, which would exclude the adoptee from taking by conforming the Trust to conform with the Settlor's intent to keep Family Trust A's assets within the family bloodlines.  The trial court granted the sibling's motion for summary judgment and modified the trust to exclude the adult adoptee because including her would "defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of a material purpose" of the Trust.

The Appeals Court dismissed the sibling's public policy argument against an adult adoptee on appeal, citing the fact that the draftsmen of Florida's Probate Code did not adopt the Uniform Probate Code provisions excluding adult adoptees in certain situations.

The Appellate Court then considered whether the trial court should have modified the irrevocable trust.  Under F.S. 736.04113, a court can modify the terms of an irrevocable trust where, "[b]ecause of circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, compliance with the terms of the trust would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of a material purpose of the trust."  The court pointed to 736.05113(3)(A), which provides that the court should consider, "the terms and purposes of the trust, the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the trust, and extrinsic evidence relevant to the proposed modification," and held that since the Trust terms are unambiguous about "adopted" persons being treated as beneficiaries under the Trust,  any question of the Settlor's intent to exclude adult adoptions is a factual issue that was inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment.  The Court reversed the Trial Court's judgment and remanded to resolve this, among other, issues.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more