125 So. 3d 953
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs loaned $350,000 to AATC, with Steinmetz signing a personal guaranty.
- Steinmetz represented he had $6,850,278.53 in a trust, described as spendthrift.
- The spendthrift trust would not distribute to cover the debt when Steinmetz defaulted.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants and challenged sections 736.0501-.0507 as unconstitutional.
- The trial court granted Wells Fargo summary judgment; it held the right to collect is not the same as the right of access to courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spendthrift statute sections violate the constitution | Zlatkiss contends the statutes abolish a common-law right to execute a judgment. | Wells Fargo contends spendthrift provisions are valid and protect assets; access to courts is not impaired. | Statutes recognize spendthrift trusts and do not violate access to courts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Kresser, 34 So.3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (valid spendthrift provisions protect trust assets)
- Waterbury v. Munn, 159 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1947) (spendthrift protections long recognized in Florida)
- Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973) (access to courts must be preserved unless justified by public necessity)
- Spencer v. Fla. Dep’t. of Corr., 823 So.2d 752 (Fla. 2002) (distinguishes access to courts from ability to enforce a judgment)
- Croom v. Ocala Plumbing & Elec. Co., 57 So. 243 (Fla. 1911) (early recognition of creditor protections in spendthrift context)
- Munn, 32 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1947) (recognition of spendthrift protections pre-dating statute)