EARL P. JONES, BEVERLY JONES SMITH AND MARJORIE O. JONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT LAUDERDALE ET AL., 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.
Beneficiaries of estates and trusts sued executors and trustees for breach of fiduciary duties, punitive damages, and removal of the executor. The trial court dismissed claims against individual defendants, struck the punitive damages claim, and declined jurisdiction over removal. The appellate court affirmed, finding the appellants failed to provide an adequate record for review.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal and striking of claims because the appellants failed to include the trust agreement, wills, and codicils in the appellate record, making it impossible to properly review the merits. The court also found no error in the trial court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction over the removal of the executor.
“The duties, powers and liabilities of executors and trustees are ordinarily fixed by the terms of the will and trust agreement.”
Establishes the foundational principle that determines what duties executors and trustees owe, which would require review of the actual documents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl P. Jones, Beverly Jones Smith, and Marjorie O. Jones were beneficiaries of certain estates and trusts. They sued the executors and trustees, alle…
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 Appellate Record Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of certain estates and trusts. They sued the executors and trustees alleging breach by the defendants of their obligations as executors and trustees in the management of the estates and trusts. Plaintiffs also ask for punitive damages and for the removal of the executor. Copies of the trust agreement, the wills and codicils were attached to the complaint. The circuit court dismissed the complaint as to the individual defendants, struck the claim for punitive damages and declared that it was without jurisdiction to remove the executor. Plaintiffs present this interlocutory appeal. We affirm.
We remind at the outset of several abstract fundamentals. The trial court decision is presumed to be correct. 1 Maloy, Florida Appellate Practice & Procedure, § 10.02. An appellant to succeed must demonstrate error. 1 Maloy, Florida Appellate Practice & Procedure, § 10.03. The appendices shall contain full copies of all pleadings and other parts of the record needed to determine the appeal. Rule 4.2 (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.
The duties, powers and liabilities of executors and trustees are ordinarily fixed by the terms of the will and trust agreement. See 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 247; Restatement of the Law, Trusts 2d, § 164 et seq. For instance, the trust itself, whatever it be, constitutes the charter of the trustee’s power and duties. From the trust, the trustee derives the rule of his conduct, the extent and limit of his authority, the measure of his obligation. Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 1943, 60 Ariz. 286, 136 P.2d 458.
The wills, codicil and trust agreement have not been included in the appendices, or otherwise presented in the appellate record for our consideration. Without them we are left without a gauge with which to measure the correctness of the trial court decision. To illustrate merely one possibility, a trust instrument may contain exculpatory provisions whereby a trustee may, at least in circumstances involving ordinary negligence and honest errors of judgment, be relieved of liability for breach of trust. Smith v. Boyd, 1935, 119 Fla. 481, 161 So. 381; Restatement of the Law, Trusts 2d, § 222; 1 Thomas, Florida Estates Practice Guide, Chap. 12, § 1.
The trial court order dismissing the complaint as to the individual defendants and *836striking plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be affirmed because of the failure of the appellant to furnish an adequate record. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 21; Gross v. Gross, Fla.App. 1961, 131 So.2d 487; Broward County Port Authority, etc. v. F. M. Rule & Co., Fla. App.1960, 119 So.2d 82.
We have considered, too, the action of the trial court in declining to exercise jurisdiction for the removal of the executor and are of the opinion that same has not been shown to be erroneous.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. Temple Judea & Hebrew Union Coll. Jewish Inst. of Religion, 994 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…outlined above, the Edgar Sonder Trust expressly provides “the Trustee has the powers now or hereafter provided by law,” [*1151] and it is generally beyond dispute that the terms of a trust control. See Jones v. First Nat’l Bank in Fort Lauderdale, 226 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (“The duties, powers and liabilities of executors and trustees are ordinarily fixed by the terms of the will and trust agreement.”). Thus, we reject the argument that present statutory provisions should be held inapplicable…
-
Berk v. Earnest Irving Berk, 272 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 90; Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 394; Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 294; Jones v. First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 834; Rule 4.2, subd. d, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. Affirmed.…
-
In re Celotex Corp. v. City of N.Y., 487 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2007)…he rules of law.” Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 201 cmt. b (1959). “From the trust, the trustee derives the rule of his conduct, the extent and limit of his authority, the measure of his obligation.” Jones v. First Nat’l Bank in Fort Lauderdale, 226 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1969); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. § 737.401 (1997). “[T]he trustee can properly exercise such powers and only such powers as (a) are conferred upon him in specific words by the terms of the trust, or (b) are necessary or appropr…
Authorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. Port Auth. v. F. M. Rule & Co., 119 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Ernestine A. King, 207 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- The City OF S. BAY v. Armstrong, 188 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Smith v. Boyd, 119 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1935)
- Imogene Gross v. Gross, 131 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)