Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a trial court has jurisdiction over a complaint seeking to invalidate a trust, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking removal of the trustee. The court ruled that claims of fraud on the court and failure to serve petitions in the trust creation proceeding fell within the trial court's authority under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to grant relief from a void or fraudulently procured judgment. The court further held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and removal of trustee were independent of the trust's creation and thus also within the trial court's jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Count I seeking invalidation of the trust.
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Counts II and III alleging breach of fiduciary duty and removal of trustee.
Holdings
- The trial court has jurisdiction because the complaint contains allegations that the trust was procured by fraud on the court or that the order creating the trust is void, falling within the purview of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b).
- The trial court has jurisdiction over these counts because they allege claims independent of, and occurring subsequent to, the creation of the trust.
Key quotations
“As to Count I (invalidation of the Trust), the allegations demonstrate that the trial court has jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that Dr. Polsby failed to serve the Amended Petition to Create a Trust or the Emergency Amended Petition to Create a Trust on the Plaintiffs, and that Dr. Polsby committed a fraud upon the court when she petitioned the probate court to create and fund a revocable trust. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) (allowing relief from a judgment procured by the opposing party's fraud or if the judgment itself is void).” (at 5)
“The Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice based on its finding that it has no jurisdiction. As the trial court has jurisdiction over all three counts, we agree with the Plaintiffs.” (at 5)
Factual background
Four adult siblings dispute a revocable trust created while their father was in a coma. Dr. Polsby, as emergency temporary guardian, petitioned the probate court to create and fund the trust, which was granted. The trust named Dr. Polsby as trustee and the four siblings as equal beneficiaries but gave the trustee discretion to withhold distributions. The plaintiffs alleged Dr. Polsby failed to serve them with the petitions and committed fraud upon the court.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint against Dr. Polsby. After Dr. Polsby moved for summary judgment, Judge Schwartz granted summary judgment, ruling that the court had no jurisdiction to review a predecessor judge's order or invalidate the Trust. Plaintiffs appealed, but the appeal was dismissed without prejudice because the order was not final. On remand, after reassignment to Judge Genden, the court denied reconsideration and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now appeal the dismissal order.
Remand instructions
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.