A LESSON IN TRUST…

We often come across cases in which a Will or a Trust leaves assets equally to all of the Decedent’s children. However, at the time of death, most of the Decedent’s assets are held in joint accounts with only one of the children named as a joint owner, thereby entitling only one child to the entire account as the remaining joint owner and avoiding the equal distribution that the parent planned through his or her Will and/or Trust.

Unfortunately, the account title tends to control, despite the understanding that the child receiving the account as joint owner had been placed on the account for convenience purposes only to help mom or dad pay bills, as needed; not to receive all of the assets upon their death. Parents believe their children would never cut out their siblings but this is sadly not always the case. (more…)

COMPENSATION OF TRUSTEES WHO ARE ALSO BENEFICIARIES

In a recent Florida Second DCA case, Burgess v. Prince, 25 So.3d 705 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 2010), the Court determined that a Trustee of a family trust, who was also a Trust beneficiary, was entitled to compensation for her management of Trust assets, despite the fact that the trust instrument provided that a beneficiary of the Trust could not receive compensation for serving as Trustee.  The trial court removed the Trustee and ordered that she may not be compensated for managing a business, which was a trust asset, and all compensation she received would be charged against her distributive share of the Trust.  See Id.  On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the removal without discussion but reversed a part of the final judgment which ruled the Trustee could not be compensated for managing the business which was a trust asset.  Although the trust instrument provided that a Trustee who is also a beneficiary shall serve as Trustee without compensation, the Appellate Court found that the Trustee received compensation from the trust for operating the business, rather than as compensation as Trustee.  In ruling, the Appellate Court relied on language in the trust instrument which plainly stated that the Trustee can employee various individuals, including any Trustee, if such employment was deemed necessary or desirable and to be paid reasonable compensation for their services.  In addition, the trust instrument had language which allowed a Trustee to employee any beneficiary or individual fiduciary in any capacity. (more…)

Breathing Life Into An Otherwise Unenforceable Trust Instrument

The following is based on real events, only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. 

Jane Settlor created her revocable trust in 2005, naming herself as the initial trustee and sole income beneficiary during her lifetime, and upon her death, the remainder of the trust estate is to be divided amongst numerous individuals (some family, some not), charities and a charitable foundation that she created.  The drafting attorney, John Lawyer, is also the nominated successor trustee and the CEO of Mrs. Smith’s charitable foundation.

A couple years after executing her trust, Jane Settlor pulled out her estate planning documents to re-review her estate plan.  Upon reviewing her revocable trust, and to her surprise, she noticed that many of the residuary beneficiaries of her trust were people that she hardly knew at all, and should not have been included as beneficiaries of her trust.  Mrs. Settlor immediately began crossing out names and devises, and interlineated (in her own handwriting) new names and devises.  Next to each interlineated change, Mrs. Settlor handwrote her initials and the date.  She then made some handwritten notes on the front page of the trust instrument, which read as follows:  “Mr. Lawyer, I read my trust today, and I couldn’t believe what I saw.  There were people named who I hardly even know.  I was so sick at the time I signed the trust, that I didn’t even know what was being presented to me for my signature!!!”  (more…)

What’s a beneficiary to do?

Many people utilize revocable trusts in an effort to avoid probate.  Often, the primary asset of a revocable trust is real estate.  The person who signs the trust (Settlor) customarily chooses the individual(s) to serve as a successor trustee upon the Settlor’s death or incapacity.

Once the Settlor dies and a successor trustee accepts the position, a set of laws mandates the trustee’s conduct under Florida law.  These laws are found in Chapter 736 of the Florida Statutes, also known as the Florida Trust Code.  In particular, sections 736.0801 (duty to administer trust), 736.0802 (duty of loyalty) 736.0803 (impartiality), and 736.0804 (prudent administration) are triggered.  The Florida Trust Code was modified substantially in recent years and the current version took effect on July 1, 2007.     (more…)

Court of Appeals Expands Reach of Genova

There is growing concern over our legislature’s inability to make laws protecting the elderly and vulnerable against having their revocable trust funds taken from them during their lives. This is a topic I have previously discussed. (See blog dated September 25, 2008, Undue Influence and Trust Revocation.) The problems addressed in my earlier blog articles arise from the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion issued twenty-five years ago in Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County v. Genova, 460 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1984). As is evident from the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling this week in MacIntyre v. Wedell, (Fla. 4th DCA, 08-754), 34 Fla.L.Weekly D1011a (May 20, 2009), Genova is alive and will remain so unless and until our elected officials decide to change the law. (more…)

Court Refuses to Use Merger to Disinherit Former Spouse.What is the doctrine of merger?

The doctrine of merger is set forth in the Restatement of (Third) Trusts §69, which provides that if the legal title to the trust property and the entire beneficial interest become united in one person, the trust terminates. The comments to this section of the Restatement also states that if by inter vivos transfer, will, or operation of law the entire beneficial interest in trust property passes to the trustee, the trust terminates and the trustee holds the property free of trust.

Thus, if the sole beneficiary of a trust dies intestate and his interest passes to the trustee as his heir, merger occurs and the trust terminates. Similarly, if the trustee is also the life beneficiary of the trust, and if the sole remainder beneficiary, holding an indefeasibly vested remainder interest in the trust, assigns her interest to the trustee or dies and leaves her interest to the trustee, the trust terminates. (more…)

Court holds trust instrument was effective in transferring both real and personal property to the trust.Prior to Florida’s adoption of the new Trust Code, which became effective on July 1, 2007, the common law held that in order for a trust to be created, the settlor was required to make a present and unequivocal disposition of property so that he or she is no longer vested with its full legal and equitable ownership. For example, it has been held in Florida that the failure of a settlor to execute a deed which conveyed real estate to the trustees of a trust precluded the creation of a “living trust” for the realty. Flinn v. Van Devere, 502 so.2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Although the new Trust Code is now effective, it provides that the common law of trusts and principles of equity supplement the Code, except to the extent modified by the Code or another law of Florida. Fla. Stat. §736.0106. This leaves a lot of “gray” area in the law of trusts, and whether certain attempts to transfer property into a trust are valid.

I’m always interested in how our sister jurisdictions handle problems in connection with attempts to transfer real and personal property into a trust that might fall short of the formalities required by the Uniform Trust Code. One such case recently surfaced in our Midwestern sister state of Nebraska in Chebatoris v. Moyer 757 N.W. 2d 212 (Neb. 2008). (more…)

In Florida, and many other states, there are protections written into the probate code which purport to protect children from unintentional disinheritance by one or both of their parents. Florida’s pretermitted child statute is codified at Fla. Stat. §732.302 and is intended avoid an unintentional or inadvertent disinheritance of a child. Florida’s statute is modeled in part after the position adopted by the Restatement of Property and the Uniform Probate Code.

The Restatement of Property provides:

§ 9.6 Protection Of Child Or Descendant Against Unintentional Disinheritance

(a) A child of the testator, or under some statutes a descendant of the testator, who was not provided for in the testator’s will may be entitled to a specified share of the testator’s estate as provided by statute. Most of the statutes, including the Original and Revised Uniform Probate Code, only protect a child who was born or adopted after the will was executed.

(b) A child of the testator who was not provided for in the testator’s will because the testator thought that the child was dead may be entitled to a specified share of the testator’s estate as provided by statute.

(c) The omitted child or descendant is entitled to the specified share unless a contrary intent or other statutory exception is established. (more…)

California Court Refuses to Allow Trust No Contest Clause to Disinherit Minor Child Who Challenges Conduct of TrusteesIt is a shame when probate courts apply the law in a manner that hurts children. I applaud a recent decision from California that refused to apply a no-contest provision contained in a trust instrument that could have resulted in a minor child being disinerhited simply by virtue of the child’s guardian asking the court to examine the conduct of the trustees. The case Safai v. Safai, 164 Cal.App.4th 233, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 759 (2008) is a great example of a court’s careful application of the law in order to protect a child from disinheritance. The facts of the case are as follows:

Mansour Safai and Susanne Gahnstedt were married for approximately eight years and had one child, Nicolai, before their marriage deteriorated into divorce. Pursuant to the marital settlement agreement regarding property and spousal support, Mansour agreed to pay child support for Nicolai.
Mansour was diagnosed with a terminal illness in 2004, and on or about January 24, 2006, executed the Trust and a Last Will and Testament. Mansour succumbed to his illness on February 9, 2006, and was survived by his brother, Max Safai; his sister, Massoumeh Safai; and his mother, Parvaneh Assefi. (more…)

Third District Finds Miami Probate Court Erred in Requiring Litigants to Prove Undue Influence as Part of a Breach of Fiduciary Claim. Court Finds Lawyer Used Client’s Money as His Own “Piggy bank.”

On February 25, 2009, the Third District Court of Appeals released its much anticipated opinion regarding the Brigham Tree Farms Trust litigation. Brigham v. Brigham, –So.2d–, 2009 WL 454492; (Fla. 3rd DCA, Feb. 25. 2009), 34 Fla.L.Weekly D443b involved, in part, a dispute over the trust assets which originated as a the multimillion dollar tree farm encompassing around 800 acres of land in western North Carolina.
In order to understand the facts of the case, you will probably need to make a family tree outlining the various parties and there relevance in connection with EFP Brigham and his wife Marion, and the table consanguinity: (more…)