SPCA Wildlife Care Center v. Abraham
75 So. 3d 1271
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mary Ericson died in 1991; her will contains a Testamentary Trust with Emma Brown as life income beneficiary.
- Article Six, Paragraph C provides that after Emma Brown’s death the trust remainder goes to the International Wildlife Society.
- In 2007, Co-Trustees petitioned to determine beneficiaries after finding no entity named International Wildlife Society.
- Affidavits from attorney who drafted the will and Emma Brown suggested the decedent intended a local Broward County animal organization; the term was a misnomer.
- Trial court held a hearing in 2009 and entered an order determining the residuary trust fails and passes by intestacy; amended order added sua sponte language.
- SPCA appealed, arguing due process violation and failure to consider cy pres as a mechanism to fulfill decedent’s charitable intent; court reverses and remands for evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court’s sua sponte ruling violate due process? | SPCA argues issue not raised or noticed; due process violated. | Co-Trustees contend court could resolve residuary validity; hearing adequate. | Yes; trial court erred by sua sponte ruling and denying notice and hearing. |
| Should the cy pres doctrine have been considered with an evidentiary hearing? | Cy pres could fulfill charitable intent; evidentiary hearing needed. | Residue should pass by intestacy absent clear intent; no evidentiary hearing requested. | Cy pres requires evidentiary hearing to determine applicability. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for will interpretation and cy pres application? | Testator’s intent governs; liberal construction to fulfill intent. | Ambiguity may permit alternative outcomes; but needs proper procedure. | De novo review for interpretation; remedy to remand for evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Neumann, 857 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (due process when issues not raised or litigated voids decree)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957) (voidable on appeal when issue not raised or litigated)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979) (sua sponte issues require notice and hearing)
- Jewish Guild for the Blind v. First Nat’l Bank in St. Petersburg, 226 So.2d 414 (Fla.2d DCA 1969) (cy pres applicability when an alternative exists)
- Christian Herald Ass’n v. First Nat’l Bank of Tampa, 40 So.2d 563 (Fla.1949) (cy pres doctrine described as equity to fulfill donor’s charitable intent)
- Humana, Inc. v. Estate of Scheying, 483 So.2d 113 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) (misnomer not fatal if identity can be identified)