Megiel-Rollo v. Megiel

Megiel-Rollo v. Megiel, 162 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)

This case involved a dispute about whether a trust was subject to reformation under F.S. 736.0415.  The decedent died leaving behind three children.  Her will left the residue of her estate in equal shares to all three of her children.  Several years after executing the will, the decedent executed a revocable trust, and she transferred her home into that trust.  The trust provided that it was to terminate upon the death of the decedent, and the property should be distributed to the beneficiaries in accordance with their respective interests as set forth on an attached Schedule of Beneficiaries.  The only problem: the draftsman of the trust forgot to prepare the Schedule of Beneficiaries.

One of the daughters filed a complaint against her siblings, arguing that the trust was void for lack of beneficiaries, and, therefore, the residence passed to the three siblings pursuant to the terms of the will. Another daughter counterclaimed seeking a judicial reformation of the trust, arguing that the mother had instructed her attorney to name two of the three siblings as the beneficiaries of the trust.

The Court held that the trust did not fail for lack of beneficiaries, since the mother was undoubtedly the beneficiary of the trust during her lifetime.  It further held that the possibility of merger (should the trust fail for lack of remainder beneficiaries) does not mean that reformation of the trust to supply the missing names of the remainder beneficiaries is unavailable. 

The Court made several findings about reformation generally and F.S. 736.0415 specifically.  In its discussion about the reformation of the trust, the Court held that pre-Florida Trust Code case law does not limit reformation to the correction of simple scrivenor's errors or administrative matters.  It also held that F.S. 736.0415, which provides that reformation of the terms of a trust is available "if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement"  does not limit correctable mistakes to simple scrivenor's errors.  Since 736.0415 is a remedial statute, it should be liberally construed.  Where like here, there was evidence of the settlor's intent for two of her three children to be the beneficiaries of the trust after her death, and the draftsman's failure to draft the schedule was what thwarted that intent, reformation is available.


Popular posts from this blog

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell