Harrell v. Badger

Harrell v. Badger, 171 So.3d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), 2015 WL 3631639

This case highlights the lack of understanding many trust and estate practitioners have about what "decanting" actually means.  Despite the clear language of F.S. 736.04117, it seems  many are still confused about when decanting is appropriate, and about how to follow the simple rules provided in the statute.

The decedent here left the remainder of her estate in trust for her son.  The trust required the trustee to distribute the net income to the son, and gave the trustee full discretion to make additional payments to or for the benefit of that son.  If assets remained at the son's death, the assets were to be distributed to the decedent's other two children.

Following the decedent's death and a dispute among the children, the son's neighbor became the trustee of the trust.  He filed a petition to employ his wife as the realtor to sell the decedent's home- the sole asset of the trust- but never received an order granting that petition.  The trustee then hired counsel to transfer the trust assets to a special needs trust to qualify the son for governmental benefits.  His counsel had him join in a pooled trust they administered, and in the joinder agreement he agreed that upon the dissolution of the son's sub-account, the assets would be used to provide for the other beneficiaries of the pooled trust.  The trustee also entered into a "care agreement" which completely mixed up the contracting parties- instead of providing for the trustee's wife to take care of the son, it provided that the trustee's wife would be paid to care for the trustee!  At trial, the trustee testified that he was unaware of any requirements for him or his wife to care for the son, despite listing payments to himself and his wife for caregiving on the trust's accountings. 

Eventually, the trustee sold the house and paid his wife a commission without court approval.  All of these actions were done without any notice to the other children, the remainder beneficiaries of the trust.  Later, the trustee's counsel, with no notice to anyone, transferred the funds from the pooled trust to another trust, and as a result were arrested, convicted and sent to prison for misappropriation of the funds in that new trust.

After the arrest and conviction of his counsel, the trustee filed a motion to terminate the trust and finally gave notice to the siblings about what had transpired.  In response, they filed a counterpetition against the trustee seeking damages for his failure to obtain court approval before employing his wife, for his failure to notify them of the sale of the house, for decanting of the trust into the pooled trust, and for the cancellation of their remainder interest in the trust.

Astoundingly, at trial the court concluded that the terms of the decedent's trust allowed the trustee to invade the principal of the trust for the son's benefit, and that he had reasonably relied on the advice of counsel and, therefore, did not breach any fiduciary duty to the trust.  The trial court concluded that the siblings had suffered no damages because the trust "would have been exhausted at some point in time." 

The Appellate Court reversed, holding that pursuant to F.S. 736.04117, a trustee must provide notice to all qualified beneficiaries of his intent to invade the principal of the trust at least 60 days prior to the invasion.  Since the siblings had an interest in the principal remaining after their brother's death, the Court held that they qualified as "qualified beneficiaries" under F.S. 736.0103(16).  Therefore, the trustee improperly exercised his power to invade the principal of the trust when he failed to notify the siblings.

The Court also held that the trustee failed to meet the requirements of F.S. 736.04117(1)(a) by decanting the trust principal to a trust that did not include only the beneficiaries of the first trust, since the pooled trust provided a contingent remainder interest to other beneficiaries.  

Because the Court's ruling about the improper decantation invalidated the trial court's findings about the sufficiency of the siblings' evidence, the Court also reversed the trial court's order imposing attorneys' fees against the siblings.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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