Giller and Grossman v. Giller
190 So. 3d 666
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Norman M. Giller held title to six parcels as "Norman Giller, Trustee"; deeds did not identify any trust by name/date, beneficiaries, or describe trust purposes.
- Norman died in 2008; Ira D. Giller and Anita Grossman were appointed co-personal representatives of his estate; probate pending.
- Personal Representatives sued for declaratory relief under Fla. Stat. § 689.07(1), seeking a declaration that the deeds conveyed fee simple title to Norman and therefore the properties are estate assets subject to probate.
- Brian J. Giller (son) controlled and managed the properties and asserted he was successor trustee of a 1988 trust; he produced an excerpt of a trust agreement and later recorded post-filing "declarations of trust."
- Trial court dismissed the § 689.07(1) declaratory claim with prejudice for lack of standing, reasoning the statute protects "subsequent parties" who rely on the public records, not personal representatives.
- Personal Representatives appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo and considered whether the amended complaint pleaded a legally sufficient § 689.07(1) claim without considering extrinsic documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal representatives may seek relief under § 689.07(1) to declare property fee simple to the decedent | Personal Representatives: § 689.07(1) on its face converts deeds that add "trustee" but lack trust id/terms into fee simple; they have capacity and fiduciary duty to bring the claim | Brian: Relief under § 689.07(1) is for "subsequent parties" who relied on public records; personal representatives lack standing/entitlement | Court: Personal representatives stated a legally sufficient § 689.07(1) claim; statute is not limited to subsequent purchasers and PRs may pursue this relief (reversed dismissal) |
| Whether the trial court could consider Brian’s post‑complaint recorded declarations of trust on a motion to dismiss | Personal Representatives: Court must confine review to the complaint; extrinsic documents not attached may not be considered on a motion to dismiss | Brian: Declarations cure the statutory defect under § 689.07(4) and show trust ownership | Court: Declarations were not part of the complaint; their legal effect under § 689.07(4) could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and was inappropriate to decide at that stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Raborn v. Menotte, 974 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2008) (construing § 689.07 and noting statute prevents secret trusts that could mislead those relying on public records)
- Callava v. Feinberg, 864 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (describing § 689.07's purpose to protect persons who rely on public land records)
- Adams v. Adams, 567 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (stating § 689.07 prevents fraud on those who rely on record title)
- One Harbor Fin. Ltd. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (applied § 689.07 to hold grantee titled "as trustee" took fee simple)
- Turturro v. Schmier, 374 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (held personal representative could claim fee simple under § 689.07 where deed designated grantee as "trustee")
- Pac. Ins. Co. v. Botelho, 891 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency and court is confined to the complaint's four corners)