Corya v. Sanders

Corya v. Sanders, 155 So.3d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), 2014 WL 5617045

This case centered around three trust accounting issues: (1) whether the affirmative defense of statutory laches limited the years a beneficiary was entitled to an annual accounting from certain trusts, (2) the interpretation of statutory provisions deciding the starting date for the annual accountings and (3) the interpretation of case law deciding the starting date for the annual accountings.

The case deals with four irrevocable trusts which were in effect for decades before one of their beneficiaries filed a lawsuit against the trustees.  Before the lawsuit was filed, the trustees had never prepared accountings for any of the trusts.

The trustees attempted to argue that there was no duty to account annually prior to July 1, 2007, when F.S. 736.0813 was passed.  The Court found that the prior statute, F.S. 737.303 also created a duty to account for an irrevocable trust, based on the language which read, "A beneficiary is entitled to a statement of the accounts of the trust annually...," and the fact that the current definition of "qualified beneficiaries" is virtually the same as the definition of "beneficiary" and "vested beneficiary" under the prior laws.  Thus, the Court held that there was a statutory duty to provide a beneficiary of an irrevocable trust with accountings before July 1, 2007.

The Court then addressed whether the affirmative defense of statutory laches limited the years the beneficiary was entitled to an annual accounting from the trusts, and held that statutory laches under F.S. 95.11(6) limits the right to an accounting, where no accounting has been done, to no more than four years before filing an action for an accounting against the trustee of an irrevocable trust.  The Court disagreed with the beneficiary's position that laches did not apply because he did not have actual knowledge that he was entitled to accountings.  It held that knowledge of the law is not an element to be proven to establish entitlement to an accounting by a trustee, and his lack of knowledge of the law had nothing to do with his knowledge that the accountings were not being given to him.  

Lastly, the Court considered how far back the trustees should be required to account.  The trial court had found that the accountings should go all the way back to when the trustees became accountable.  The Court disagreed both because of the defense of statutory laches, discussed above, and because F.S. 736.08135 does not require accountings prior to January 1, 2003.  The Court did not agree that F.S. 736.08135(1), which states that trust accountings should go back to the "date on which the trustee became accountable" expressed a legislative intent that if an accounting had never been done, a trustee's first accounting should go back to the date the trustee assumed his fiduciary duties.  

The Court also noted that the Mesler v. Holly decision, cited by the trial court, is not authority for requiring a trustee to render an accounting for trusts from the date they assumed their duties as trustee.  

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 16, 2015 at 2:38 AM

    Is the process by which counsel for one party to a lawsuit intends to integrate their actions with anticipated events and reactions to achieve the overarching goal of the litigation.estate lawyer

    ReplyDelete

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 stamped the will.  The testator
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, &quo
Read more