PBCBA BAR BULLETINS pbcba_bulletin_Nov. 2019 | Page 22

PROBATE CORNER
Standing To Sue For Trust Revocation
And Breach Of Trust
DAVID M. GARTEN
In Cates v. Cmty. Bank & Trust of Fla., 2019
Fla. App. LEXIS 12273; 44 Fla. L. Weekly
D 2037; 2019 WL 3755444 (Fla. 5th DCA
August 9, 2019), the decedent died leaving
the majority of his assets to charity. The
decedent’s two children brought an action
to invalidate their father’s will and trust
alleging that he lacked testamentary
capacity. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed,
the trustee served the children with a trust
accounting.
In response, the children sued the trustee
for mismanagement of the trust. The
trustee moved to dismiss the breach of
trust complaint asserting that the children
lacked standing to sue because they were
not named beneficiaries of the trust and
they merely had a hypothetical interest
based on "uncertain future events" (i.e.,
invalidating their father’s will and trust).
The trial court granted the trustee’s motion
to dismiss with prejudice and the appellate
court reversed.
decision: Estate of Brock, 695 So. 2d 714 (Fla.
1st DCA 1996) (the decedent’s disinherited
son contesting his father's will was an
"interested person" and had standing to
contest the charges against his father's
estate for compensation of professionals)
and Agee v. Brown, 73 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2011) (the beneficiary under prior will
had standing to seek revocation of probate
of testator's will).
A Monthly Review of Recently
Issued Appellate Opinions
Thursday , Nov.ember 7
4 : 00 P. M . - 5 : 00 P. M .
4 t h DCA
1 1 0 S. T a m a r i n d , W P B
Coffee & Bagels with the Judges
October 8 Coffee and Bagels with the Judges in West Palm Beach - Join
us for the next one on Tuesday, November 12, and the second Tuesday of
every month in the north end of the cafeteria at the main courthouse. A
bonus for attending is that those who have a UMC hearing that morning
can sign-up to be called first once the hearings begin.
The court reasoned that the children were
interested persons under §731.201(23),
F.S. (i.e., a person who may reasonably be
expected to be affected by the outcome of
the particular proceeding involved) and had
standing to sue the trustee for actions taken
in administering the trust because their
potential inheritance is an interest that will
be affected by the trustee’s management of
the trust.
In addition, the trustee argued that by
filing the invalidation action, the children
disclaimed their interests under the trust
and have renounced any entitlement
to their father's estate, citing Carman v.
Gilbert, 641 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1994) (holding
that renunciation of beneficial interest
is condition to contesting will but such
renunciation is qualified rather than
absolute). The court rejected this argument
because the children do not claim to have
standing based on the Trust. Instead,
they claim to have standing as interested
persons based on the possibility that they
will inherit the estate under a previous will
or the law of intestacy.
Finally, the court cited to the following
estate cases as persuasive authority for its
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN
22