Paula Minassian v, Rebecca Rachins and Rick Minassian
152 So. 3d 719
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Settlor Zaven Minassian executed a revocable trust (restated 2008) providing for a Family Trust for his spouse, which would "terminate at the death of my spouse" and then be "administered as provided in the Articles that follow."
- Articles 11–12 direct distribution after the spouse’s death into "separate trust share[s]" for each child; other provisions reference "trusts," separate trustees, and beneficiaries’ separate trusts.
- After Zaven’s death, his children sued the surviving trustee (wife) for breach of fiduciary duty and accounting; the court denied the wife’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The wife appointed a trust protector under Article 16, §18, who amended Article 12 to state explicitly that a new trust would be created on the wife’s death with separate shares for each child.
- The children filed a supplemental complaint challenging the trust protector’s amendments; trial court granted their partial summary judgment, holding the trust unambiguous and the amendments invalid.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding (1) trust-protector amendment powers are authorized under Florida law and (2) the trust was ambiguous, so the trust protector’s extrinsic evidence and amendments to effectuate settlor intent were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida law allows a trust protector power to modify a trust | Children: Florida trust modification statutes and common-law non-delegation preclude a trust-protector amendment power | Wife: Trust Code §736.0808(3) and trust terms permit a trust protector; settlor can confer modification power | Held: §736.0808(3) and related provisions permit a settlor to confer modification power on a trust protector; statutes harmonized to allow such powers |
| Whether the trust was unambiguous such that the trust protector exceeded authority by amending Article 12 | Children: Trust language creates a single continuing Family Trust and Article 12’s "shares" do not create new trusts; amendment contravenes settlor intent | Wife/Trust Protector: Trust is ambiguous on whether new trusts or shares arise; extrinsic evidence (drafter’s testimony) shows settlor intended separate trusts and authorized correction of ambiguities | Held: Trust is patently ambiguous on whether new trusts are created; extrinsic evidence supports settlor’s intent to create separate trusts, so trust protector’s amendments were valid and within his powers |
Key Cases Cited
- Vetrick v. Keating, 877 So. 2d 54 (interpretation of trust reviewed de novo)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom, 125 So. 3d 320 (summary judgment on pure legal question reviewed de novo)
- Bryan v. Dethlefs, 959 So. 2d 314 (settlor’s intent is the polestar; interpret from four corners but consider all provisions together)
- Sorrels v. McNally, 105 So. 106 (construction of testamentary documents to ascertain intent)
- In re Estate of Barry, 689 So. 2d 1186 (no parol evidence if instrument unambiguous)
- First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., N.A. v. Frumkin, 659 So. 2d 463 (patent ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence)
- Yates v. Wessel, 775 So. 2d 993 (trust duration governed by instrument; termination on death directs distribution)
- Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of New York, 840 So. 2d 993 (statutory construction principle: give effect to all provisions and harmonize related sections)