Thomas Grant v. Bessemer Trust Company of Florida, Inc., as personal representative of the Estate of Milton Grant

Summary

In Grant v. Bessemer Trust, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a codicil provision expressing the testator’s intention that his son “continue to be employed” and directing the personal representative to “ensure such employment” was precatory, not a mandatory lifetime employment guarantee. The court emphasized that testamentary intent is determined from the entire instrument, and that a construction rendering a provision valid (at-will employment) must prevail over one that would conflict with corporate directors’ fiduciary duties. The decision also reiterates that a will cannot coerce a fiduciary relationship.

Holdings

1. The provision did not provide lifetime employment; it provided at-will employment.
2. The first sentence was precatory, expressing Milton's desire; the second sentence was a directive to obtain employment but not to guarantee lifetime employment.
3. The provision could not be enforced as a mandatory directive because it would conflict with the fiduciary duties of officers and directors to the corporation.
4. The trial court's interpretation was supported by competent substantial evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the employment provision in the codicil guaranteed Thomas Grant lifetime employment with his father's company.
2. Whether a testator can compel a corporation's officers and directors to employ a designated person through a testamentary directive.

Disposition

affirmed