Bryan v. Dethlefs

959 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · May 16, 2007 · No. Nos. 3D06-2360, 3D06-2441

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment determining that trust assets vested in the named grandson upon the settlor's death, even though distribution had not been completed before the grandson died. The court held that the grandson's estate retained its interest in the undistributed trust assets and also affirmed a related non-final order concerning liquidation of an estate asset.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Writing for the Court
Lagoa, Judge; Fletcher, J.; Lagoa, J.; Schwartz, Senior Judge
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
May 16, 2007
Docket number
Nos. 3D06-2360, 3D06-2441
Procedural posture
Appellants appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of Victoria Dethlefs and separately petitioned for certiorari regarding a subsequent non-final order directing liquidation of an estate asset. The court treated the certiorari petition as a non-final appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Construction of an unambiguous written instrument and the legal effect to be drawn from it are questions of law appropriate for determination by summary judgment.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential within the Florida Third District Court of Appeal and persuasive subject to applicable Florida precedent.
Parties
Frank David Bryan, etc., et al. v. Victoria Dethlefs
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

trust administrationprobate procedureestate administrationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

trusts and estatesprobateappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trust provision vested the trust assets in Bizzell at Bryan's death or only when the assets were physically distributed.
  2. Whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment based on the unambiguous language of the trust.
  3. Whether the subsequent non-final order directing liquidation of an estate asset should be affirmed.

Holdings

  1. The trust provision vested the trust assets in Bizzell upon Bryan's death because Bizzell was living at that time and satisfied the trust's explicit survivorship requirement; his later death did not divest his estate of the remaining trust assets.
  2. Summary judgment was proper because the parties agreed the trust provision was unambiguous and its legal effect could be determined as a matter of law.
  3. The court affirmed the non-final order directing liquidation of an asset of the Bryan estate.

Key quotations

The polestar of trust or will interpretation is the settlor's intent. (959 So. 2d at 317)
Given these legal principles, we find that the language of the Trust provision can only have the legal effect of vesting the trust assets in Bizzell upon Bryan's death. (959 So. 2d at 318)

Factual background

Charles L. Bryan executed a revocable living trust providing that, upon his death, the remaining trust principal and income would be distributed to his grandson, Robert R. Bizzell, if Bizzell was living at the time of distribution. Bryan died in 2001, and Bizzell became personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust, beginning distributions to himself. Bizzell later died intestate before all trust assets had been distributed, and his half-sister, Victoria Dethlefs, claimed that the remaining assets had already vested in Bizzell and therefore belonged to Bizzell's estate.

Procedural history

Bryan's grandson, Robert R. Bizzell, was appointed personal representative of Bryan's estate and co-trustee of Bryan's revocable living trust. After Bizzell died intestate while trust distributions were incomplete, Dethlefs sought judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, arguing that the trust assets vested in Bizzell at Bryan's death and became part of Bizzell's estate. The trial court entered summary judgment for Dethlefs and later ordered liquidation of an estate asset; the District Court of Appeal affirmed both orders.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Florida District Court Of Appeal Of Florida Third District