REBECCA RACHINS and RICHARD Z. MINASSIAN v. ZAVEN MINASSIAN TRUST, etc.
251 So. 3d 919
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Zaven Minassian executed a 2008 Restatement creating a revocable trust that would become irrevocable at his death; he and his wife Paula were co‑trustees.
- Upon Zaven’s 2010 death, the trust directed remaining property to a “Family Trust,” with Paula as trustee and empowered to distribute income/principal to herself for her needs; on Paula’s death any remaining Family Trust property would be allocated into trusts for the couple’s children.
- The children (Rebecca Rachins and Richard Minassian) sued Paula alleging improper administration and dissipation of trust assets; they later amended to add William Andersen (the trust protector/drafting attorney) and his firm.
- On prior appeal this court held the trust instrument ambiguous, validated trust‑protector amendments creating separate children’s trusts, and remanded. Minassian v. Rachins, 152 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
- On remand the trial court entered summary judgment and dismissed most counts, ruling the children lacked standing because they were not beneficiaries or qualified beneficiaries of the Family Trust.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding the children are beneficiaries and qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Trust Code and therefore have standing to challenge Paula’s administration of the Family Trust; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the children have standing to challenge Paula’s administration of the Family Trust? | Children: they have a future beneficial interest in any property remaining at Paula’s death and thus are beneficiaries/qualified beneficiaries. | Paula/Andersen: children are neither beneficiaries nor qualified beneficiaries under the Trust Code; trust met creation requirements during husband’s life. | Held: Children are beneficiaries and qualified beneficiaries under §736.0103(16)(c); they have standing. |
| Does the Family Trust beneficiary status require outright distribution to children (vs. creation of a new children’s trust)? | Children: remainder interest exists even if principal flows into a newly created trust for their benefit. | Defendants: because distribution is to a new trust (not outright), children lack current beneficiary status. | Held: Remainder/reversionary interests that result in a children’s trust still qualify as beneficiary/qualified beneficiary status. |
| Are the wife’s broad discretionary invasion powers unreviewable by remaindermen? | Children: trustee’s absolute discretion is implicitly limited; remaindermen may hold trustee accountable. | Paula: argues plenary discretion and that children lack standing to challenge. | Held: Trustee’s power is subject to implied limitations; remaindermen (qualified beneficiaries) can challenge improper, arbitrary, or capricious exercise. |
| Did prior rulings (trust‑protector amendments) resolve children’s ability to sue Paula? | Children: prior decision left their right to challenge administration intact; it did not strip standing. | Defendants: argued statutory definitions preclude standing. | Held: Prior opinion validated amendments but did not eliminate children’s beneficiary/qualified beneficiary status; standing exists under Trust Code. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minassian v. Rachins, 152 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (prior appeal holding trust ambiguous and validating trust‑protector amendments)
- Brown‑Thill v. Brown, 929 F. Supp. 2d 887 (W.D. Mo. 2013) (federal district court applying Florida law holding grandchildren were qualified beneficiaries entitled to challenge administration)
- Mesler v. Holly, 318 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (trustee’s broad discretion is subject to implied limitations protecting remaindermen)
- Harrell v. Badger, 171 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (contingent remainder beneficiaries are qualified beneficiaries under Florida Trust Code)