WILLIAM B. MILLS, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND CODICILS THERETO OF ALFRED I. DUPONT, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD BALL, J. C. BELIN, T. S. COLDEWEY, ALFRED DUPONT DENT, W. L. THORNTON, FLORIDA FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND CODICILS THERETO OF ALFRED I. DUPONT, DECEASED, T. EDWARD AUSTIN, JR., STATE ATTORNEY IN AND FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF FLORIDA, 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.
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a beneficiary under a will may raise estoppel, waiver, and res judicata defenses through a cross-claim in a declaratory judgment action concerning the validity of trustee appointments and their actions. The court affirmed the trial court's decision allowing the cross-claim to proceed despite technical pleading irregularities.
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling allowing Nemours Foundation to raise and have determined estoppel, waiver, and res judicata defenses in the declaratory judgment action. Although the pleading was not in strict compliance with pleading rules, the court agreed with the trial judge that these are proper questions for determination in the suit.
[1] A cross-claim filed by a beneficiary against a trustee in a declaratory judgment action, asserting affirmative defenses such as estoppel, waiver, and res judicata, may be…
[2] In a declaratory judgment action concerning the validity of trustee actions, a beneficiary may raise affirmative defenses against a trustee challenging those actions, eve…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying a motion of appellant, William B. Mills (a defendant below) to dismiss and to strike a cross-claim filed by appellee, The Nemours Foundation, (a defendant below) and treating the cross-claim as affirmative defenses.”
Establishes the nature and subject matter of the interlocutory appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam B. Mills and Edward Ball were both trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Alfred I. duPont, deceased. Ball and other trustees filed a 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 Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying a motion of appellant, William B. Mills (a defendant below) to dismiss and to strike a cross-claim filed by appellee, The Nemours Foundation, (a defendant below) and treating the cross-claim as affirmative defenses. This is a declaratory judgment action which was brought by Edward Ball and other trustees under the Last Will and Testament and Codicils of Alfred I. duPont, deceased, against Mills, also a trustee under said Will and Codicils. The Nemours Foundation, beneficiary under the aforesaid Will and Codicils was also made a defendant in the cause. The petition for declaratory judgment of Ball and other trustees seeks a judicial declaration as to the validity of an increase in the number of trustees and the actions of the trustees — Ball contending that the trustees were validly selected and their actions were legal and Mills contending to the contrary. By its cross-claim which the trial court designated and treated as affirmative defenses, Nemours, in support of the validity of the selection of the additional trustees and their acts subsequent thereto, raises questions of estoppel, waiver, and res judicata against Mills’ contention to the contrary. In a sense these affirmative defenses are directed to Mills, but in reality they are directed to the cause of action itself and are questions which should properly be ruled upon in this proceeding. While this pleading in this declaratory judgment action is not in compliance with strict rules of pleading, we consider, as did the trial judge, that these are questions which Nemours should be allowed to raise and have determined in this suit. The ruling of the trial court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., MILLS, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Nat'l Bank v. McCARTHY, 547 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…lusion of a non-jury trial the lower court entered a judgment directing the trustees to pay $40,000 to Barbara. We conclude from our review of the record that the trial judge properly impressed the alimony obligation upon the trust. Mills v. Ball, 359 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We find no authority, however, to require the trustee to make a lump sum payment. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage merely provides for a continuing obligation to pay alimony which is secured. It cannot be interprete…