GUY B. BAILEY, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE B. LEATHERMAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Conflict Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Guy B. Bailey, Sr. from an amended final judgment requiring that in all transactions between a marital trust and another named corporate entity, the defendant shall not act as trustee of the marital trust without the concurrence of another party whom the court appointed as a co-trustee for such transactions only. We affirm.
Contrary to the defendant’s argument, we conclude that in the marital trust/corporation transactions the defendant has much more than a potential conflict of interest, but has, in fact, an actual conflict of interest because the defendant is the chief executive officer and a substantial shareholder in the corporate entity. Obviously, the defendant has a personal interest in any loans, for example, which the marital trust makes to the corporate entity. This being so, and in light of previous transactions concluded without the necessary prior court approval, it is clear that as to such transactions, the appointment of a co-trustee was permissible. See Smith v. Fleetwood Bldg. Corp., 120 Fla. 481, 163 So. 293 (1935); § 737.403(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brigham v. Brigham, 11 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…. at 211. Relevant to the case before us, we cited section 737.403(2), which requires a trustee to seek court approval from a court for the exercise of a trust power when it conflicts with the trustee’s individual interest. See Bailey v. Leatherman, 615 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Barnhart v. Hovde, 490 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Consequently, we agree with appellants that Dana’s improper transfer must be set aside and the final judgment reversed so that the proceeds from the sale and interest be re…
-
Keye v. Gautier, 684 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…fit and, as a result of this action, placing these trust funds unnecessarily at risk. See Crawford v. Crawford, 129 Fla. 746, 176 So. 838 (Fla.1937); Jungbluth v. American Bank & Trust Co., 101 Fla. 289, 134 So. 618 (Fla.1931); Bailey v. Leatherman, 615 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Barnhart v. Hovde, 490 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); Centrust Savings Bank v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., 483 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Shriner v. Dyer, 462 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 198…
-
Aiello v. Hyland, 793 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ly litigated facts established at a protracted evidentia-ry hearing. As the court below stated: Section 737.201(l)(a) unequivocally confers upon this Court the discretion and authority to remove a trustee where appropriate. In Bailey v. Leatherman, 615 So. 2d 810 [ (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ], the appellate court affirmed a trial judge’s [*1152] decision preventing the trustee from engaging in any transaction between the trust and a particular corporate entity in which the trustee was an officer and significant sha…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Fleetwood Bldg. Corp., 120 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1935)