Mesler v. Holly
318 So. 2d 530 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trustee's grant of 'absolute discretion' to invade a trust's principal does not relieve the trustee from the duty to exercise good faith and judiciousness, and such administration is always subject to judicial review for abuse, especially when the trustee is also the sole lifetime beneficiary.
Facts:
- On April 9, 1970, Frederick L. Way established an inter vivos trust (the 'Florida trust'), naming himself and Elaine J. Holly as co-trustees.
- The Florida trust designated Holly as the sole lifetime beneficiary upon Way's death, with the remainder interest designated to another trust established for his great-grandchildren, Robert A. Mesler, Jr., et al.
- A provision in the Florida trust granted the co-trustees 'absolute discretion' to distribute principal as they 'deem necessary to maintain the standard of living to which ELAINE J. HOLLY has become accustomed.'
- The day after creating the trust, Way executed a will with a pour-over provision, directing the residue of his estate into the Florida trust.
- Following Way's death on October 20, 1972, Holly and O. Ray Gussler began acting as co-trustees.
- The great-grandchildren (remaindermen) alleged that Holly, as a trustee and the sole lifetime beneficiary, was making unreasonable and excessive invasions of the trust principal, thereby wrongfully depleting the remainder.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert A. Mesler, Jr., et al. (Plaintiffs) filed an amended complaint in a Florida trial court against Elaine J. Holly and O. Ray Gussler (Defendants), seeking a declaratory judgment, removal of Holly as trustee, and an accounting.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, finding that the 'absolute discretion' granted in the trust vested sole authority in the trustees and that Plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith.
- The Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can remaindermen beneficiaries state a valid cause of action for judicial review when they allege that a trustee who is also the sole life beneficiary is unreasonably invading trust principal for her own benefit, even where the trust instrument grants the trustee 'absolute discretion'?
Opinions:
Majority - McNulty, C.J.
Yes. A trustee's grant of 'absolute discretion' to invade principal does not shield her from judicial review and accountability to remaindermen. Even broad discretionary powers must be exercised in good faith and are subject to court review to prevent abuse, particularly when the trustee is also the beneficiary. The court reasoned that when a trustee has a beneficial interest in her own decisions, her discretion is 'particularly vulnerable to a challenge by remaindermen.' An unlimited power of invasion is subject to implied limitations to protect the remaindermen. Therefore, allegations that a trustee-beneficiary is not providing accountings and is making unreasonable invasions of principal give rise to an inference of abuse of discretion sufficient to require the trustee to respond and state a valid cause of action.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the core fiduciary principle that no trustee's power is truly absolute and is always subject to the supervisory power of the courts. It establishes that when a conflict of interest exists, such as a trustee also being the sole lifetime beneficiary, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to the exercise of discretionary powers. The case lowers the pleading standard for remaindermen, clarifying that they do not need to allege specific facts proving bad faith or fraud to survive a motion to dismiss; instead, alleging facts that create a reasonable inference of abuse (self-dealing, lack of transparency, excessive invasions) is sufficient to compel the trustee to account for their actions.
