WILLIAM CLEVELAND JOHNSON, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, W. W. SALISBURY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD G. TAYLOR AND INEZ J. PINE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRED W. PINE, DECEASED, 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.
A minor beneficiary of a trust challenged the assessment of costs against him personally in an action seeking an accounting, receiver, injunction, and removal of the trustee. The court reversed the cost assessment and remanded with directions to assess costs against the trust estate instead, finding that because the beneficiary acted in good faith and the trust was benefited by the proceedings, costs should be borne by the trust.
Costs should be assessed against the trust estate rather than against the beneficiary-plaintiff. When trust proceedings are undertaken in good faith and result in a benefit to the trust, costs may be charged to the trust estate, and failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.
“Generally, a trust estate must bear the expenses of its administration.”
Establishes the foundational rule that administration costs are borne by the trust estate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor beneficiary, through his next friend, instituted an action against trustees seeking an accounting, receiver, injunction, and removal of the tr…
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 Trustee cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal arose out of an action instituted by a minor beneficiary of a trust, by his next friend, for accounting, receiver, injunction and removal of trustee. Following hearing, the complaint was dismissed and interlocutory appeal had been perfected from post decretal orders taxing costs against the plaintiff and fixing attorney’s fees.
The appellant in his brief has abandoned the assignment of error directed to the allowance of attorney’s fees. The assignment of error directed to the merits will not be considered as no appeal was taken from the final decree. The remaining assignment of error attapks the assessment of costs against the plaintiff.
The costs assessed in the amount of $841.81, consist primarily of fees paid to an auditor appointed by the chancellor for the purpose of making a complete audit of the trust estate. The record reveals that the audit reflected a debt of $1,193.12 owed to the trust estate by a deceased trustee on an unsecured loan. This debt was acknowledged and paid by the trustee’s estate. In addition, the. auditor was compelled to establish accounting procedures and books for a period of approximately fifteen months during which time books were not kept by the defendant trustee.
Generally, a trust estate must bear the expenses of its administration. Sorrels v. McNally, 94 Fla. 1174, 115 So. 540. We find nothing in the record that causes us to conclude that the plaintiff acted in bad faith, nor was he pressing unfounded contentions. Although the plaintiff was unsuccessful in achieving his prime objective — the removal of the trustee — it appears to be undisputed that as a result of the proceedings undertaken the trust estate was benefited.1
When as a result of proceedings undertaken in good faith the trust was benefited, the costs may be charged against the trust estate. See In re Freeman’s Trust, 247 Minn. 50, 75 N.W.2d 906; Monroe v. Winn, 19 Wash.2d 462, 142 P.2d 1022; Annotation, 9 A.L.R.2d 1132; cf. In re Farris’ Estate, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 721. Since the assessment of costs against the trust estate would appear to be discretionary, the question then arises as to whether the discretion has been abused. Upon the record as presented to this court and the further fact that it is conceded that the audit performed in the course of the *482proceedings was beneficial to the trustee as well as to the estate, we conclude that the failure to assess the costs against the trust estate was an abuse of discretion.
Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that it was error to assess the costs against the appellant. Accordingly, the order taxing costs is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter an order assessing costs against the trust estate.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. Fla. First Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 419 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…faith. Although the trial court found that the appellant acted in bad faith, this finding is not supported by the record. In addition, during oral arguments, the Bank admitted that the litigation served a useful purpose. See also Johnson v. Taylor, 116 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding appellant individually liable for attorney’s fees. We therefore reverse that portion of the order imposing personal liability on appellant for attorney’s fees. Furthermore, the trial…1 / 2
-
Potter Palmer IV v. Mallory H. Horton Ad Litem of Gordon Palmer O'Neil and Sandra Potter O'Neil, 469 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Inc., 430 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (an abuse of discretion to tax receiver’s expenses against unsuccessful plaintiff where trial court found that the defendant’s reprehensible conduct necessitated appointment of a receiver); Johnson v. Taylor, 116 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (abuse of discretion to assess costs against a beneficiary who was unsuccessful in removing a trustee, but whose action resulted in an audit beneficial to the estate); McAllister v. McAllister, 184 A. 723 (N.J.Ch.1936) (trustees o…
Authorities Cited
- Casper v. Bonbright, 94 Fla. 1237 (Fla. 1928)
- In re Est. of William L. Farris v. Bond, 113 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Sorrels v. McNally, 94 Fla. 1174 (Fla. 1927)