51.2 Dowdy v. Dowdy A. According to Michael’s view of the phrase “death of each,

Question

51.2 Dowdy v. Dowdy
A. According to Michael’s view of the phrase “death of each,” how many co-trustees would have succeeded Dennis on his death? Explain.

B. Suppose that the Dowdy Family Trust had provided for a specific child to become co-trustee on the death of his or her parent – Deborah to succeed Betty, for example. How would the result have been different? 988 UNIT TEN Property and Its Protection Case 51.2 Dowdy v. Dowdy District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D85, 182 So.3d 807 (2016) Background and Facts Betty and Dennis Dowdy created the Dowdy Family Trust. The property of the trust comprised of two parcels of real estate. The trust document identified Betty and Dennis as the settlors, the initial trustees, and the initial beneficiaries. The trust document provided for the revo- cation or amendment of the trust and for distributions to the settlors. It also settlor's children as co-successor trustees and, following the settlors and distribution to all of their children. appointed one of each Dennis had three children, and Betty had two-they did not have any children in common After Dennis died, Betty amended the trust to remove Dennis's children as successor trustees and as ciaries, Previously, Betty and Dennis had instructed the trust to sell one of the properties. Now, Betty sold the remaining trust property Dennis's son Michael, who was named as a co-successor trustee in the trust document, learned of the sale and filed a petition in a Florida state court against Betty. Michael maintained that Betty's amendment was invalid because it had been executed after Dennis's death. He argued that when Dennis died, the trust became irrevocable and he succeeded Dennis as co-trustee. The court ordered Betty to deposit the proceeds of the sale with the court pending its construction of the trust. Betty appealed In the Language of the Court NORTHCUTt Judge . . . Article of the original trust document provided as follows: During the Setdors fetime, the Trustees, in the Trustees' sole discretion, may pay, invade, or apply the income or corpus (trust peopertyl, or so much as they may choose, to or for the benefit, support and mainte- nance ofche initial primary beneficiaries . Thus, if Berty was the only trustee following the death of her husband, she had sole and unfettered authority to sell the trust property for her own benefic. Michael daims to be a successor co-trustee under article III of the original trust: .In the event of the death of cach of the Inial Tuates . the Selors nominate and appoint Sertlors soe and sepon, Michad R. Dowdy and Setrs' daughter and tepdaugher, Deborah Ann Andrews Bery's daugheerl, as Co-Successor Trustces In Michacl's view, he phrase "death of each" meant the death of cither initial trustee. Therefore, he asserts that he became a co-trustce with Betty upon his father's death Our view lis) that the succession of trustees occurred only upon the death of both initial trust- ees. This view is confirmed by the use of the same phrascology elsewhere in the original trust docu Article V provides Afier the death of each of the Settiors, the Co-Saccesor Trustes are directed to liquidate the Trast Estate and immediately pay and distribute the Trust Estate to the children and stepchildren of the Settlers . . . . Chary in this inusance the phnse death of cach Mus nmear the death of both. Othervise, the articlei dire- tion to liquidate the trust otate and immediately distribute it to the settlor' children would wilifh article IV gramt of aushority to invade she income or corpas of the rust for the bengfit of the initial primary bencficiarie or the sureinor Indeed, upon the death of one settor it would altogether nullify the survivor's status as beneficiary. This, of course, would be an absurd interpretation in complete contravention [contradic- tion) of a central purpose of the trust. [Emphasis added.) There is nothing in the original trust document to suggest that the phrase "death of each has a dif ferent meaning in article II. To the contrary, that article is otherwise consistent with this interpretation We conclude, then, that Michael did not succeed Dennis as a trustee when Dennis died.

Explanation / Answer

there are 3 trustees. Parents,dawady. . Hence death of dawady or his parents. They money will go trustee as per legal. Because it was clearly mentioned that it will go to trustee.

Hence result will not be different. It will be for co trustee only

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 5
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.