IN RE TRUSTS UNDER THE WILL OF ELIZABETH R. ZIEGLER, DECEASED. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, AS A CO-TRUSTEE OF THE TRUSTS UNDER, AND AS A CO-EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF ELIZABETH R. ZIEGLER, DECEASED, AND MURIEL M. MITCHELL AND ELIZABETH ANNE LANDIS, AS BENEFICIARIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT WESLEY LANDIS, RICHARD WILLIAM LANDIS AND WILLIAM W. MITCHELL, AND WALTER R. ZIEGLER, AS A CO-TRUSTEE OF THE TRUSTS UNDER, AND AS A CO-EXECUTOR OF THE WILL OF ELIZABETH R. ZIEGLER, DECEASED, AND WALTER R. ZIEGLER, INDIVIDUALLY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order requiring trustees to obtain court approval before invading trust corpus, holding that discretionary powers granted to trustees by a trust instrument cannot be usurped by the court absent a showing of abuse.
The court held that the trial court lacked authority to require court approval before trustees could exercise their discretionary power to invade trust corpus. The court retained supervisory powers and could review alleged abuse of discretion upon petition by interested parties, but could not substitute itself for the trustees in the initial exercise of that discretion.
“Since the terms of the trust instrument appear to vest discretion in the trustees, the court was without authority to vary the terms of the instrument by substituting itself in the place and stead of the trustees.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that courts cannot usurp discretionary powers granted to trustees by trust instruments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth R. Ziegler's will created trusts and granted the trustees discretion to encroach upon the principal of the trust estate to pay beneficiaries…
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 Trust Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
In a proceeding under Chapter 737, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., the chancellor entered an order which, inter alia, determined that the appellant bank was qualified to act as a co-trustee under the last will and testament of the deceased, and that “this court be notified and rule upon any requested invasion or distribution of trust corpus prior to such invasion and/or distribution.” It is from this latter portion of the chancellor’s order that this appeal has been taken.
A portion of the last will and testament of the deceased provided in substance that the trustees could encroach upon the principal of the trust estate and pay from the principal to named beneficiaries such sums of money as the trustees in their discretion found necessary or desirable for the support and maintenance of said beneficiaries.
The appellants in substance contend that the power granted to the trustees to encroach upon or invade the corpus of the trust was one that could be exercised only by the trustees and not by the court. In this respect the appellants construe the court’s order to mean that before the trustees are permitted to exercise the discretion conferred upon them by the trust terms of the decedent’s will, they would have to seek the advice and consent of the court. We also construe the court’s order in that light.
Since the terms of the trust instrument appear to vest discretion in the trustees, the court was without authority to vary the terms of the instrument by substituting itself in the place and stead of the trustees. See 54 Am.Jur., Trusts, § 286, and Peach v. First National Bank of Birmingham, 247 Ala. 463, 25 So.2d 153, p. 157. There is no contention here that the court would not retain supervisory powers over the trust estate, or that the court would not retain its rights, upon appropriate petition or other pleadings by an interested party, to review an alleged abuse, if any, of the discretion exercised by the trustees. The presumption is that the trustees will exercise this power in good faith and within the bounds of sound discretion. See 54 Am. Jur., Trusts, § 287; 33 Fla.Jur., Trusts, § 81.
Concluding as we have that the questioned portion of the order appealed is without legal basis, the same is hereby stricken.
The order as modified is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2010)…App. 2d 712, 716-717, 207 P. 2d 1077, 1079-1080 (1949) (following In re Estate of Marré). Three other cases are inapposite because their circumstances do not involve any allegation of abuse of discretion by the trustee. See In re Trusts of Ziegler, 157 So. 2d 549, 550 (Fla. App. 1963) (per curiam) (“There is no contention here that the court... would not retain its rights, upon appropriate petition or other pleadings by an interested party, to review an alleged abuse, if any, of the discretion exercised by t…