MARY V. HAMILTON AND ROBERT D. BURGETT, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALICE DONAHUE AND EILEEN H. MATTA, APPELLEES
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.
The court affirmed the trial court's appointment of a successor trustee to wind up a terminated marital trust, holding that the court properly exercised its authority under the operative trust provision when the income beneficiary had predeceased and the primary appointment mechanism became inoperative.
When a trust's primary mechanism for appointing a successor trustee becomes inoperative due to the income beneficiary's death, the court may appoint a successor trustee under the operative provision authorizing judicial appointment upon trustee resignation.
[1] When a trust provision for appointment of a successor trustee by agreement of the income beneficiary becomes inoperative due to the beneficiary's death, the court may app…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants are distributees of a terminated marital trust that provided income to the settlor for life and termination upon the income beneficiary's d…
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, who are distributees of a terminated marital trust, challenge an order appointing a successor trustee to the trust. The trust provided for income to the settlor for life and termination of the trust upon the income beneficiary’s death. The income beneficiary is now deceased. A trustee is needed to wind up the trust because the previous trustees resigned. Appellants’ main complaint is that the court failed to follow the trust’s provisions regarding the appointment of a successor trustee. They cite to the trust provision which provides first for the income beneficiary or beneficiaries to try to agree on a successor trustee. Because the income beneficiary is deceased, however, that provision of the trust was inoperative. Instead, the operative provision provides for the appointment of a successor trustee by the court upon the trustee’s resignation. Therefore, there was no error in the trial court’s order appointing a successor trustee.
As to appellants’ claim that the appointed trustee was biased, appellants have failed to supply us with a record of the hearing on this issue. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling is presumed to be correct. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michael P. McMULLIN to the J. Alfred McMullin Living Tr. dated 12/21/95 v. Beaver, 905 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ion of trust assets and of the trustee in the performance of his or her duties” until final distribution of the trust assets. § 737.402, Fla. Stat. (2003). After a. trust terminates, a winding up period is usually necessary. See Hamilton v. Donahue, 847 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Even if the beneficiary may have the right to complain that a winding up period is being unduly extended by litigation brought by, the trustee, the party sued does not. The summary judgment was thus erroneous. We have considered…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)