Kritchman v. Wolk

Kritchman v. Wolk, 152 So.3d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)

The decedent created a revocable trust, of which she was co-Trustee during her life with Wells Fargo.  During her life, she had the power to direct the payment of principal from her trust.  She used the trust to pay her cousin's grandson Hunter's private school tuition, and paid for his tuition plus room and board at Yale during his freshman and sophomore years. 

In April of Hunter's sophomore year at Yale, the decedent wrote a letter to Wells Fargo directing them to arrange to pay for the costs of his junior and senior year at Yale as well. Consistent with her letter, Wells paid Hunter's tuition for the fall semester of his junior year, but failed to make arrangements for the payment of his costs beyond that semester.  Wells did not pay for Hunter's tuition, room or board for his last three semesters at Yale.

The decedent passed away during Hunter's fall semester of his junior year.  Wells assured Hunter's mother that his tuition would be paid, but the decedent's son and successor co-Trustee of her trust countermanded his mother's written instructions to Wells.

Hunter filed a lawsuit against Wells and the decedent's son alleging breach of written and oral contracts, promissory estoppel and breach of trust.  His claims included both his unpaid tuition, room and board at Yale, as well as future graduate school expenses which he claimed he was entitled to under the trust.  The trial court found in favor of Hunter for his Yale tuition, room and board, reserved jurisdiction to consider future damages for graduate school expenses, and required the co-trustees to disgorge their attorneys' fees paid from the trust.

The Court held that Wells was obligated to carry out the decedent's written instructions to make arrangements to pay for Hunter's costs for his last three semesters at Yale.  It held that by not paying, Wells violated F.S. 736.0801 (duty to administer the trust in good faith), F.S. 736.0803 (duty to act impartially among the beneficiaries) and 736.0804 (duty to prudently administer the trust).  It further held that the son, as co-Trustee of the trust, was liable as a co-trustee pursuant to F.S. 736.1001(1).  Upon finding the breach, the Court held that since the trustees failed to give notice to the beneficiaries of their intent to take attorneys' fees from the trust, under F.S. 736.0802(10) they were prohibited from taking further fees and costs from the trust, and were required to refund their previous attorney's fees and costs paid to Wells from the Trust.

The Court did not agree with Hunter that his future graduate school tuition should be paid by the trust, since the trust did not include any such provision for him, nor did the written direction from the decedent.  

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