LAURI F. PARKER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE NATURAL GUARDIAN OF CASSIE DANIELE PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN J. SHULLMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA KATZ SILBERMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PAUL SILBERMAN MARITAL TRUST, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BARBARA KATZ SILBERMAN TRUST, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lauri Parker sought to remove Steven Shullman as personal representative of her mother's estate and trustee of her mother and stepfather's trusts, alleging vindictive and questionable conduct. The trial court denied the removal petition, finding that while some of Shullman's actions were questionable, they did not rise to the level justifying removal when the grantor and testator had explicitly placed trust in Shullman's judgment.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the removal petition, concluding that while some of Shullman's actions were questionable or vindictive, they did not rise to the level necessary to override the grantor's and testator's explicit decision to place Shullman in complete control.
[1] A court must follow the dictates of a grantor of a trust and a testator of a will when those individuals were of sound mind when making their decisions.
[2] Questionable or vindictive decisions made by a personal representative or trustee do not automatically warrant removal if they do not rise to a level that overrides the g…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The problem that Lauri Parker has is that her mother simply did not trust her to make intelligent financial decisions, that she implicitly trusted Steven Shullman to make intelligent financial decisions on behalf of her daughter and her granddaughter, and this court has to follow the dictates of the grantor of the trust and the testator of the Will because she was obviously of sound mind when she made the decision to put Steven Shullman completely in control.”
Establishes the core reasoning for denying removal: respect for the testator's explicit judgment about whom to trust with fiduciary authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Katz Silberman created trusts and left a will naming Steven Shullman as personal representative and trustee. After her death, her daughter Lau…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal Of Personal Representative cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The action before the trial court was the petition of Lauri F. Parker to remove Steven J. Shullman as the personal representative of her mother’s (Barbara Katz Sil-berman) estate and as trustee of her mother and stepfather’s trust. The trial court conducted a hearing which consisted of nine days of trial in which the petitioner and respondent each called approximately nine witnesses and introduced a combined total of one hundred twenty three documents. The trial court denied Lauri F. Parker’s petition to remove Steven J. Shullman as personal representative of her mother’s estate and as trustee of her mother and stepfather’s trust. We affirm.
The trial court in entering its final judgment on the removal of the personal representative and trustee went to great lengths to detail the acrimonious relationship that exists between Parker and Shullman. Furthermore, the trial court found that certain actions taken by Shullman were questionable and vindictive. The trial court’s reasoning can best be summed up quoting from paragraph 11 of the final judgment:
The decision before the court has to be whether the accumulation of “vindictive” decisions, or questionable decisions, or indecision, or deliberately made decisions, made by Steven Shullman as either personal representative or trustee, add up to sufficient evidence for this court to remove him as the trustee of the trusts and as the personal representative. The court finds they do not. The problem that Lauri Parker has is that her mother simply did not trust her to make intelligent financial decisions, that she implicitly trusted Steven Shull-man to make intelligent financial decisions on behalf of her daughter and her granddaughter, and this court has to follow the dictates of the grantor of the trust and the testator of the Will because she was obviously of sound mind when she made the decision to put Steven Shullman completely in control.
This court also views some of the actions taken by Shullman to be somewhat questionable and vindictive; however, we concur that these actions do not rise to the level to override the decision made by Barbara Katz Silberman as grantor of the trust and as testator of the will. We conclude that the trial comb did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to remove Shullman.
AFFIRMED.
STONE, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lauri F. Parker v. Shullman, 906 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…iary had instituted an action to remove the fiduciary as personal representative of her mother's estate and as trustee, which the trial court denied and this Court affirmed, remanding the issue of Shull-man's attorney's fees. See Parker v. Shullman, 843 So. 2d 960, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Later, he petitioned the trial court for his fees and costs, to which the beneficiary filed the pending counterclaims.…
-
Lauri F. Parker and Cassie Daniele Parker v. Shullman, 983 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t evidence for his removal as trustee and personal representative. This court agreed with the trial court’s characterization of some of Shull-man’s actions, but affirmed the trial court’s decision denying Lauri Parker’s petition. Parker v. Shullman, 843 So. 2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 857 So. 2d 197 (Fla.2003). In January 2002, the trial court issued a construction order. The court’s order found that Barbara intended to provide generously for Lauri and Cassie. The court found that the trustee wa…