Gossett v. Gossett

Gossett v. Gossett, 182 So.3d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

In this decision on the equitable doctrine of "renunciation," the Court held that a trust beneficiary who challenged a trust document did not have to repay distributions made to him from the trust in order to challenge the trust document.  

Prior to the initiation of the litigation, the decedent's wife and trustee of his trust sent the decedent's son distributions under the last version of the trust, and intended that he accept the distributions to prohibit him from challenging the validity of the last version of the trust.  In his lawsuit to set aside the last versions of the trust, he renounced any interest he may have had in those trusts, but alleged that Florida law did not require him to return the money he had already received because he was entitled to an equal or greater amount under the prior versions of the trust.

The trial court held that the son was required to return all prior distributions before challenging the later versions of the trust.  The Appellate Court reversed, finding that the rationales for the renunciation rule do not apply to the distributions to the son.  First, renunciation protects the trustee if the trust is invalidated, which the Court held was not relevant here because the son was entitled to more than the distributions he received.  Second, renunciation is required to demonstrate that the lawsuit is sincere and not vexation.  The Court dismissed this rationale, stating that vexation and insincere claims are always present and no more so here.  Finally, renunciation is necessary to ensure that the property is available for disposition, which the Court held was not relevant since he was entitled to more than the distributed amount if he prevailed.  

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