Source: https://www.floridaprobatelitigationlawyer.com/category/trust-disputes/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:04:38+00:00

Document:
Legendary blues musician B.B. King passed away on May 14, 2015 due to congestive heart failure at the age of 89. In a will created in 2007, King named his longtime business manager, Laverne Toney, as the executor/personal representative of his will. The 2007 will, thus, puts Toney solely in charge of administering King’s assets, his property, and his trust. In June 2015, a Las Vegas judge confirmed Toney’s appointment as sole executor, and rejected efforts to contest the will made by four of Mr. King’s children.
Although B.B. King did not have children from either of his two marriages, he nevertheless claimed to have 15 children with 15 different women over the course of his lifetime. Confusing the situation still further, King’s doctors determined in the 1980’s that due to King’s low sperm count, he was not able to conceive children. However, King never disputed paternity, and claimed to be the father of all 15 children, 11 of whom are still alive and have been fighting Toney over the estate.
New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Pelicans owner, Tom Benson, is currently involved in a family dispute and a series of judicial proceedings emerging from changes in his estate planning documents. After becoming displeased with the way his daughter—Renee Benson—and her two kids, Rita and Ryan, began acting upon his remarriage, Mr. Benson decided to strip his descendants of ownership shares of the Saints and Pelicans. These ownership shares were provided for in trusts that Benson had created to benefit Renee, Rita, and Ryan.
However, under the terms of the trusts, removal of the shares requires that Mr. Benson replace them with other assets of equal value. Benson has tried to fulfill this obligation, but his attempts have proven futile as the trustees have refused to accept promissory notes Benson has attempted to deliver in exchange for the ownership interest in the sports teams. The trustees believe that Benson has not offered assets equal to the value of the ownership interests, as questions still exist as to the dollar value of the assets.
Under Florida law, if the terms of the trust dictate that a third party has the authority to control the actions of a trustee, that third-party authority may be owed deference over the trustee’s discretionary power. See In re Celotex Corp., 487 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2007). If this case was being litigated in Florida and Benson had reserved the authority to control the actions of the funds’ trustees, litigation may have been avoided. Needless to say, a well-written and comprehensive estate plan can make all the difference when flexibility is necessary to handle previously unforeseen circumstances.
When you are gone, will your surviving heirs abide by every wish of your estate just as you envisioned, or will they fight over their own interpretations of your will? Ambiguous language in estate planning can create friction among your loved ones when they are at their most vulnerable, erasing the love underlying your final gifts.
Florida is one of many states that allow adult adoption, which is often used to allow a stepparent to adopt a stepchild later in life. See Fla. Stat. § 63.042. Florida has, however, limited this ability in certain circumstances, such as adopting one’s spouse. See Fla. Stat. § 63.042(2)(c) (finding that a married person may not adopt his or her spouse). But, unlike other states, adoptees are presumed to be descendants of their adoptive parents for the purposes of intestate succession and class gifts. See Fla. Stat. § 732.108; see also Fla. Stat. § 732.608. This is unlike other similar provisions, such as the Uniform Probate Code §2-705, which limits an adult adoptee’s right to inherit through class gift provisions of wills and other governing instruments.
Do Florida Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Foreign Trusts?
When a trust has been executed in a foreign jurisdiction by a settlor who subsequently becomes a resident of Florida, such a trust will often recite that the law of the foreign jurisdiction controls. The fact that a resident decedent leaves little or no property in the state is not necessarily a bar to administering the decedent’s estate in Florida. A domiciliary administration could be established in Florida, and the property could be administered where it is located under ancillary proceedings. However, section 736.0205, Florida Statutes, provides that if a party objects, the court shall not entertain trust proceedings under section 736.0201, Florida Statutes, for a trust registered, or having its principle place of administration, in another state, except under limited circumstances. These circumstances include situations in which all interested parties could not legally be bound by litigation in the courts of the foreign state where the trust is registered or has its principle place of administration. Fla. Stat. § 736.0205. Furthermore, the court may condition a stay or dismissal of a foreign trust proceeding on the consent of any party to jurisdiction of the state where the trust is registered or has its principle place of business. Id. The court may also grant a continuance or enter any other appropriate order. Id.
If the personal representative would not now be entitle to appointment.
Any interested person may petition for the removal of a personal representative. The petition must allege an interest and facts comprising a statutory ground for removal. Fla. Prob. R. 5.440. Furthermore, the removal of a personal representative appointed by a decedent is a last resort. See In re Estate of Murphy’s, 336 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Florida statutes allow for the modification of trust documents when the beneficiaries and trustees enter into a settlement agreement. The proposed changes have to further the grantor’s intent, meet the best interests of the beneficiaries or stem from another appropriate reason. But what if the trust specifically prohibits the proposed changes? Then, only in unique circumstances the will the court modify the trust as allowed by Fla. Stat. s. 736.0414 if the trust instrument forbids such changes.
Furthermore, a later paragraph of the same trust provided: “[T]o the extent permitted by law, I prohibit a court from modifying the terms of this Trust Agreement under Florida Statutes s. 737.4031(2) or any statute of similar import.” Section 737.4031 of the Florida Statutes (2002), which is currently found in section 736.04113 of the Florida Statutes, allowed for the judicial modification of a trust under certain circumstances.

References: § 63
 § 63
 § 732
 § 732
 §2
 § 736