Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...at 1148 (quoting In re Estate of Robinson, 720 So.2d 540, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). However, as we also have recognized, the party seeking reformation at all times has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the trust, as written, does not reflect the settlor’s intent. § 736.0415, Fla....

...ed the Trustee failed to prove entitlement to reformation of the trust, denied the petition for reformation on that ground, and entered final judgment directing compliance with the trust provisions concerning disposition of trust assets. Pursuant to section 736.0415, Florida Statutes (2008), a “court may reform the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor’s intent if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the settlor’...

...WALLACE, Judge. Denise Megiel-Rollo, individually and as Trustee of the P.M. Revocable Trust dated July 29, 1997 (the Trust), appeals a final summary judgment determining that the Trust is not subject to reformation under the provisions of section 736.0415, Florida Statutes (2013), to add to it a contemplated schedule of beneficial interests that the draftsman of the Trust had neglected to prepare and to incorporate into the trust instrument when it was executed. Because section 736.0415 is a remedial statute that authorizes the court to reform the terms of a trust to conform the terms to the settlor's intent, we reverse the final summary judgment. I....

...Megiel executed the Trust Agreement on July 29, 1997, she mistakenly believed that the Schedule of Beneficial Interest[s] naming Denise and Robert as sole beneficiaries was included in the Trust Agreement. 9. Pursuant to §736.0415, Fla....

...REVOCABLE TRUST is void ab initio. .... 3. As no valid Trust was ever created, the P.M. REVOCABLE TRUST cannot now be reformed in accordance with Florida Statutes § 736.0415. 4....

...This appeal followed. V. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW The question that we are called upon to decide—considering the facts in the light most favorable to Denise—is whether the Trust is subject to reformation under section 736.0415 to correct an alleged drafting error....

...This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Davis v. Rex, 876 So. 2d 609, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). -8-  VI. DISCUSSION A. The Statute. The parties agree that the controlling statute is section 736.0415, which addresses the subject of "Reformation to correct mistakes." The statute provides as follows: Upon application of a settlor or any interested person, the court may reform the terms of a tru...

...expression or inducement. In determining the settlor's original intent, the court may consider evidence relevant to the settlor's intent even though the evidence contradicts an apparent plain meaning of the trust instrument. § 736.0415....

...1st DCA 2012) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 12.1 cmt. i (2003)). As the designated successor trustee, Denise is an "interested person" with standing to seek reformation of the Trust. Reid v. Temple Judea, 994 So. 2d 1146, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Section 736.0415 was enacted by the legislature in 2006 as part of the new Florida Trust Code, chapter 736, Florida Statutes (the Code)....

...address the Fourth District's pronouncement concerning the availability of reformation of a trust to avoid a merger. - 13 -  We recognize that the Fourth District's decision in Davis predates the enactment of the Code and section 736.0415....

...reformation [of a trust] is intended to address simple scrivener's errors that are contrary to the intent of the [settlor]." In other words, some errors in trusts are subject to correction by reformation, but others are not. According to Sharon, reformation is not available under section 736.0415 where, as in this case, the mistake amounts to a complete failure to designate any remainder beneficiaries that would result in a merger. We disagree. An examination of Florida trust law and section 736.0415 itself provide additional reasons to conclude that reformation of a trust is available to avoid what would otherwise result in a merger....

...imited to the correction of "simple scrivener's errors" or administrative matters and not to more substantive issues such as the designation of beneficiaries. In fact, the pre-Code case law supports the opposite conclusion. E. The Broad Scope of Section 736.0415. We also find Sharon's argument unpersuasive because of the language of section 736.0415 itself....

...We must "give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless the words are defined in the statute or by the clear intent of the legislature." Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1992) (citing Se. Fisheries Ass'n v. Dep't of Natural Res., 453 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1984)). Giving the statutory language of section 736.0415 its plain and ordinary meaning compels the conclusion that the remedy of reformation of the Trust is available to correct the alleged drafting error resulting from the omission to prepare and incorporate...

...ron contends. For this court to read such a limitation into the statute would amount to judicial legislation of the sort in which we will not indulge. See Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Kinsey, 655 So. 2d 1191, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). F. Section 736.0415 is a Remedial Statute. Our conclusion finds additional support in the status of section 736.0415 as a remedial statute. "A remedial statute is one which confers a remedy, and a remedy is the means employed in enforcing a right or in redressing an injury." Grammer v. Roman, 174 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). As a remedial statute, section 736.0415 "should be liberally construed in favor of granting access to the remedy provided by the Legislature." The Golf Channel, Inc....

...2d 561, 565-66 (Fla. 2000). "Courts should not interpret remedial statutes strictly or narrowly to thwart the intent of the Legislature." E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614, 629 (Fla. 2009). The limiting construction that Sharon urges us to place on section 736.0415 is inconsistent with our duty to give this remedial statute a liberal rather than a narrow construction. G. Considerations of Practicality. Finally, we note that the construction that Sharon urges us to place on section 736.0415 is impractical and would prove to be incapable of judicial enforcement. Sharon does not explain how the courts might distinguish "simple scrivener's errors" that are subject to correction by reformation from the more complex and su...

...The affidavit from the draftsman admitting error in the preparation of the Trust was sufficient to avoid summary judgment. See Davis, 876 So. 2d at 612. On remand, Denise must have an opportunity to prove her claim for reformation of the Trust. In accordance with section 736.0415, the standard of proof that she will be required to meet to establish her claim is clear and convincing evidence....

...t but was instead seeking to validate the otherwise invalid amendment. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. The case proceeded to a bench trial with the trial court ultimately granting Lindenau's reformation request pursuant to section 736.0415, Florida Statutes (2016), and ordering Judy, as successor trustee, to transfer the Bradenton house to Lindenau within ten days of the final judgment....

...radenton house to Lindenau. There is also no dispute that the second amendment was only signed by one of the witnesses. Rather, the dispute focuses on whether an improperly executed trust amendment can be validated through reformation pursuant to section 736.0415. The trial court concluded that section 736.0415 permitted reformation in this case because Lindenau met her burden of proving that "the accomplishment of the settlor's intent was affected by a mistake in law." Because the trial court's conclusion rests on a question of law, we review the final judgment de novo....

...mistake of law affecting the accomplishment of Ralph's intent and that the appropriate remedy is reformation. We disagree. Although Lindenau asks this court to distinguish Allen, Crawford, and Aldrich on the basis that they either predated the enactment of section 736.0415 or failed to address it, we are not persuaded that any distinction is dispositive in this case due to the language of the statute itself. Section 736.0415 provides in relevant part that the terms of a trust can be reformed "to conform ....

...Rather, Lindenau sought reformation to remedy an error in the execution of the second amendment. But by the statute's terms, reformation is only available to remedy mistakes that affect "both the accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust." § 736.0415. We reject Lindenau's argument that Megiel-Rollo can be read to mean that reformation is available even where a trust was invalidly executed....

...Because there was no valid, enforceable amendment, the imposition of a constructive trust on the Bradenton house "would only serve to validate an invalid" amendment. Allen, 826 So. 2d at 248. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred by denying the petition for declaratory judgment, by applying section 736.0415 to reform the second amendment, and by requiring the transfer of the Bradenton house to Lindenau....

...fact or law, whether in expression or inducement. In determining the settlor's original intent, the court may consider evidence relevant to the settlor's intent even though the evidence contradicts an apparent plain meaning of the trust instrument. § 736.0415, Fla....

...Although this provision does not expressly mention trustees, its legislative history confirms that it is intended to encompass trustees whose authority to seek reformation has always been presumed to exist: Reformation of a trust to cure mistakes is addressed in s.736.0415, F.S....

...e is an "interested person," and an "interested person" has standing to seek reformation of a trust. For these reasons, we reject the general notion that a trustee lacks the standing to seek reformation of a trust either before or after enactment of section 736.0415....

...n and the Probate Law Committees; and representatives from the Florida Bankers Association and the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Its May 21, 2006 summary stated: 3. Trust Reformation .... b) Reformation to Correct Mistakes Under section 736.0415, upon application of the trustee or any interested person, a court may reform the terms of a trust to conform to the settlor's intentions if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake....

...Id. Following Ralph’s death, Ralph’s children, including Judy, as successor trustee, filed a petition for declaratory judgment to determine the validity of the first and second amendments. Id. Lindenau filed an amended counterclaim, seeking a reformation of the second amendment pursuant to section 736.0415, Florida Statutes (2016), asserting that the error in failing to have two attesting witnesses sign the second amendment was a mistake at law. Id. at 1076. In the alternative, Lindenau sought a constructive trust in her favor as to the Bradenton house. Id. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted Lindenau’s request to reform the second amendment pursuant to section 736.0415, and ordered Judy, as successor trustee, to transfer the Bradenton property to Lindenau....

...As such, when a settlor “fails to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for valid execution,” the trust “remains invalid and unenforceable.” Id. at 1077. The Second District concluded that an improperly executed trust amendment cannot be validated through reformation pursuant to section 736.0415 because under that statute, a trust can only be reformed to conform to the settlor’s intent, noting that the statute focuses “on the terms of the trust, not the execution of it.” Id....

...Farrior of Buell, Elligett, Farrior & Faircloth, Tampa; and Paul E. Riffel, Tampa, for Appellee. ATKINSON, Judge. Karey Ann McGee appeals the trial court's final judgment, which granted Jacqueline McGee's second amended petition filed pursuant to section 736.0415, Florida Statutes (2021), and reformed Robert Charles McGee's 2021 trust to be a restatement of his 2014 trust. Because the trial court erred by reforming the trust pursuant to section 736.0415, we reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of judgment denying Jacqueline's second amended petition for reformation.1 Background This appeal concerns two revocable trusts that Robert created....

...Jacqueline, in her capacity as the trustee for each trust, filed a second amended 1 For ease of reference and to avoid confusion, we refer to the members of the McGee family by their first names. 2 petition to reform the 2021 Trust pursuant to section 736.0415.2 She alleged that Robert intended to make his 2021 Trust "a full restatement" of the 2014 Trust and to make her the sole beneficiary of the trust property but that an error occurred whereby Robert's "title interest in his real estat...

...The trial court concluded that Jacqueline "met her burden of proof under [section 2 Jacqueline's second amended petition asserted two other causes of action, which the trial court denied. Those causes of action are not at issue in this appeal. 3 736.0415] to reform the 2021 Trust to be a restatement of the 2014 Trust." Analysis Karey argues on appeal that the trial court erred by reforming the 2021 Trust pursuant to section 736.0415. Because the trial court's ruling rests on a pure question of law concerning the application of section 736.0415, this court's review is de novo. See Kelly v. Lindenau, 223 So. 3d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Megiel-Rollo v. Megiel, 162 So. 3d 1088, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Section 736.0415 provides in relevant part that the court may reform the terms of a trust, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the settlor's intent if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement. § 736.0415....

...Consistent with the principal focus of both parties on appeal, a party seeking reformation under the statute must establish that a mistake was made in the terms of the trust. But even if there is such a mistake, it must be one that affects the settlor's intent. See id. Because section 736.0415 provides courts with the authority to "reform the terms of a trust ....

...If the terms of the trust already conform to the settlor's intent, then the terms of the trust and the settlor's intent would not need to be conformed to one another. In that scenario, the two would already be in conformity, and the trial court would lack the authority under section 736.0415 to reform the trust. In this case, Jacqueline, as the party petitioning for reformation of the 2021 Trust, failed to prove that any alleged mistake "affected" the 4 "accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust." Id. (emphasis added)....

...ocument are in concert. As neither the "settlor's intent" nor the "terms of the trust were affected by a mistake of fact or law," there was no need or authority for the trial court to conform any "terms of [the] trust . . . to the settlor's intent," § 736.0415—which could have, and would have, been accomplished had Robert followed his attorney's explicit instructions to subsequently transfer assets into the new 2021 Trust....

...It may have slipped his mind, or he may have thought better of his original plan to leave all the assets to Jacqueline. The record does not reflect an answer, and it need not provide one in order for this court to determine that the trial court lacked the authority under section 736.0415 to reform the terms of the 2021 Trust because 7 the record establishes that no mistake of law or fact frustrated the settlor's intent. Jacqueline contends that reformation was appropr...

...the 2021 Trust as written failed to accomplish or conform to Robert's intent. See Morey, 93 So. 3d at 489. The problem that the reformation statute gives the trial court the authority to rectify is a failure of "the terms" of the trust to "conform" to the "settlor's intent." § 736.0415. Regardless of whether the drafter of the 2021 Trust knew of the existence of the 2014 Trust, he prepared a new trust with terms that would accomplish precisely what the trial court found to have been Robert's...

...1971) ("A stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court."). The 2021 Trust says nothing whatsoever about the 2014 Trust. And it did not need to reference the prior trust in order to conform with "the settlor's intent." See § 736.0415. The trial court erred by applying section 736.0415 to reform the 2021 Trust, the terms of which conformed to the settlor's intent....