DAGOBERTO CAPO, ET AL.
v.
JULIO C. CAPO, ET AL.
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 trustee of a revocable trust owes duties to the settlor and beneficiary named in the trust, not to contingent beneficiaries whose interests are not vested.
[1] A trustee of a revocable trust owes fiduciary duties to the settlor and named beneficiaries, but not to contingent beneficiaries whose interests are not vested under the…
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 intelligence“a trustee owes duties to the settlor/beneficiary of a revocable trust and not to contingent beneficiaries”
Citation to Hilgendorf v. Est. of Coleman explaining section 736.0603, Florida Statutes
Manuel and Aida Capo established revocable trusts and transferred their business shares to their six mutual children before their deaths in 2009 and 2…
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 Revocable Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0409 Lower Tribunal No. 21-3338-CP-02 ________________
Dagoberto Capo, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Julio C. Capo, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bertila Soto, Judge.
Rosenthal, Rosenthal, Rasco, LLC, and Eduardo I. Rasco, and Steve
M. Bimston, for appellants.
Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A. and Lauri Waldman Ross, for appellees Julio Capo and Jesus Capo, as Trustees.
Law Offices of Robert P. Frankel, P.A., and Robert P. Frankel (Plantation), for appellees/intervenors, Luis E. Capo, Carlos E. Capo, Roberto Capo and Pedro Capo.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case arises from a contentious probate dispute involving the Capo family. In 1967, Manuel and Aida Capo moved from Cuba to the United States. Along with their mutual six children, the family started their business, El Dorado Furniture. This family was very close and devoted their lives to this business and to each other. Manuel had another son from a previous relationship, Dagoberto Capo. Dagoberto stayed in Cuba until 1978. Upon arrival, he only worked at the business for a short period of time. He quit to open his own business.1
Manuel and Aida spent decades succession and estate planning to ensure a legacy for their family and their business. They both executed wills and set up reciprocal revocable trusts. These trusts would be split into subtrusts upon their deaths. These sub-trusts named each other as the primary beneficiary. Each had the power of appointment. At the death of the last surviving spouse, the trustees were to divide the trust estate into equal
1 But at the request of Manuel, the family continued to pay Dagoberto for about 35 years. Ultimately, Dagoberto was paid over $2.5 million plus health insurance.
Manuel Capo unexpectedly passed away in 2009. Thereafter, Aida set up irrevocable gift trusts for Dagoberto’s children—Maday Capo and Manuel Capo, Jr. But in the years following Manuel’s death, Dagoberto never went to see Aida. Aida passed away in 2018. Appellants Dagoberto, Maday, and Manuel, Jr. initially sought an interest in El Dorado Furniture. Summary Judgment was entered against them and the trial court ruled that Manuel and Aida Capo had transferred all their shares in the company to their six mutual sons before their death. Dagoberto, Maday, and Manuel, Jr. then pursued other claims, asserting a failure to furnish accountings for Manuel’s and Aida’s revocable trusts, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent conveyance of the family home, and tortious interference with testamentary expectancy. The trial court conducted a six-day nonjury trial on these issues. It heard testimony from fourteen witnesses and considered hundreds of exhibits. It then issued a
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Swiss v. Flanagan, 329 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Hilgendorf v. Est. OF Thelma Coleman & Jennilynn K. Smith, 201 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)