As a trust litigation attorney practicing in Florida, I regularly encounter trustees who fail to grasp the full scope of their fiduciary obligations. Recent Florida appellate decisions reflect an unmistakable trend: courts are intensifying scrutiny on trustee conduct, especially failures to inform beneficiaries, render accountings, and administer the trust with loyalty, prudence, and good faith. For trustees, ignorance of the Trust Code or reliance on informal advice is no defense. For beneficiaries, these rulings provide clear pathways to relief—including removal, surcharge, and disgorgement. Below is a detailed analysis of key cases that every fiduciary, beneficiary, and attorney involved in trust litigation should study.
- Gnaegy v. Morris, 389 So.3d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023): A Blueprint for Trustee Removal Due to Administrative Neglect and Breach of Duty
In Gnaegy, the Third District upheld the removal of a trustee under § 736.0706(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and § 733.504, applicable to her concurrent role as personal representative. The trial court found, and the appellate court affirmed, that the trustee had committed a series of persistent breaches including: (1) failure to file the Notice of Trust Acceptance in violation of § 736.0813(1)(a); (2) failure to file trust tax returns, exposing the trust to penalties, in breach of the trustee’s duty of prudent administration under §§ 736.0801, 736.0804, and 736.0810, and under § 518.11, the prudent investor rule; (3) failure to provide accountings under § 736.0813(1)(d), which requires annual accountings and accountings upon termination of the trust or change of trustee; (4) failure to provide relevant information to beneficiaries under § 736.0813(1)(e); (5) failure to distribute trust income or principal per § 736.08147, constituting a violation of the trustee’s mandatory duty of impartial and timely distribution; and (6) failure to abide by the terms of the trust or administer it in the best interests of the beneficiaries, per § 736.0801 and § 736.0802. In addition, the court noted the trustee’s failure to invest the trust assets consistent with the prudent investor rule. This comprehensive failure supported removal under § 736.0706(2)(c), which permits removal where the trustee demonstrates persistent failure to administer the trust effectively, and where removal serves the best interests of the beneficiaries. The trustee’s defense—reliance on counsel—was insufficient to negate breach because she did not prove that counsel’s advice was reasonable under § 736.1009 (trustee exculpation based on reasonable reliance). The court held that the pattern of neglect over years outweighed any defense of mistake or misunderstanding.
- Freeman v. Berrin, 352 So.3d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022): Common Law Removal and Equitable Powers in the Context of a Land Trust
Freeman is a critical case where the Second District affirmed the removal of a land trustee—not under Chapter 736, which does not apply to land trusts governed by § 689.071—but under the court’s inherent equitable powers and common law. The trustee in Freeman operated a cattle business on trust property in express violation of the Certificate of Participation, which prohibited any business activity. The trial court found the trustee had: (1) engaged in self-dealing through improper use of trust land; (2) charged excessive administrative and management fees without authority; (3) failed to provide accountings or verify expenses; (4) failed to obtain consent of the majority beneficiaries before incurring significant obligations; and (5) failed to disclose a condemnation action filed by the county, violating his duty to inform and act with loyalty. While Chapter 736 was inapplicable, the court emphasized that equitable relief—including removal—is still available where a trustee breaches fiduciary obligations. The court cited the historic equitable jurisdiction to protect beneficiaries and trust property, reaffirming that trust administration is subject to judicial oversight even where statutory mechanisms are unavailable. The decision articulates that § 689.071 is remedial and should be liberally construed to preserve traditional equitable remedies in cases of trustee misconduct. Notably, this case reaffirms that trustees under Florida land trusts are still bound by the common law fiduciary duties of loyalty, impartiality, accounting, prudence, and good faith—even if the Trust Code does not directly apply.
- Miller v. Moore, 391 So.3d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024): Personal Liability Through Disgorgement Requires Individual Service
In Miller, the Fourth District reversed a trial court’s disgorgement order entered against a co-trustee in his representative capacity because the remedy sought was personal. Moore, the beneficiary, alleged that the co-trustee transferred $100,000 from a related Michigan trust into his personal account for unauthorized compensation. The court found that disgorgement, like surcharge, constitutes a remedy imposing personal liability on a fiduciary for breach of trust. Therefore, service must be made upon the fiduciary individually—not merely in their representative capacity—to establish personal jurisdiction. The court relied on Kozinski v. Stabenow, 152 So.3d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), which held that surcharge actions require personal service because they result in monetary judgments enforceable against the individual trustee’s personal assets. Disgorgement is available under § 736.1001(2), which provides remedies for breach of trust including compensatory damages, restoration of trust property, and “any other appropriate remedy.” But the procedural defect—failure to serve Miller in his individual capacity—voided the trial court’s jurisdiction. This case clarifies that beneficiaries pursuing disgorgement or surcharge must ensure proper procedural posture, including naming and serving the trustee personally. It also demonstrates Florida’s robust recognition of personal fiduciary liability for unauthorized compensation, misappropriation, and self-dealing.
- Roller v. Collins, 373 So.3d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023): Beneficiaries Lack Standing to Bring Claims Belonging to the Trust
In Roller, trust beneficiaries sought reimbursement for trust assets used to satisfy a loan on property now owned by a third party, arguing the trust was an “accommodation party” under § 673.4191(1), Florida’s UCC. The Fifth District assumed, for argument’s sake, that the trust qualified as such, but ultimately dismissed the claim due to lack of standing. The court held that under Rule 1.210(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., and trust common law, only the trustee—not the beneficiaries—may bring claims belonging to the trust unless an exception applies. The court emphasized that a trustee is the real party in interest for litigation involving trust assets or obligations. Although the court recognized limited exceptions (e.g., conflict of interest, trustee refusal to act), none were pled or applicable. The court cited longstanding principles from Bogert and the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, reiterating that a beneficiary cannot sue to recover trust property, enjoin injury to the trust corpus, or recover damages for breach by a third party unless the trustee is unwilling or unable to act. This case serves as a critical reminder that beneficiaries must establish statutory or equitable grounds to bypass the trustee’s exclusive authority to enforce claims on behalf of the trust.
- Trust Law Commentary and Doctrinal Framework
Florida law codifies the trustee’s duty to inform and account under § 736.0813, including specific timelines and content requirements for notices, accountings, and trust information. These duties are complemented by general fiduciary principles codified in §§ 736.0801–736.0817, which include the duties of loyalty, prudence, impartiality, and administration in good faith. Section 736.1001 establishes the remedies for breach, including removal, injunction, damages, restitution, accounting, and any other relief necessary to redress the breach. Section 736.0706 authorizes removal for serious breach of trust, unfitness, unwillingness, persistent failure, or where removal serves the beneficiaries’ best interest. The Florida Practice Series (18 Fla. Prac., Law of Trusts § 18:8 and § 7:1) underscores that trustees may not escape liability merely by claiming good intentions or misunderstanding. They are held to objective standards of care and fidelity. Additionally, Bogert § 527 states that repeated minor violations or a single egregious breach can warrant removal. Conflicts of interest, lack of cooperation with beneficiaries, or ignoring court orders all constitute valid bases for equitable removal.
Conclusion
Florida appellate courts are sending a clear message: trustees must scrupulously observe their statutory and common law obligations. Failure to provide timely accountings, notices, and disclosures will not be excused. Trustees who self-deal, mismanage, or remain willfully ignorant of their duties are at risk of personal liability and removal. Beneficiaries now have detailed appellate roadmaps to assert claims for removal, damages, and disgorgement.
If you have any issues with a Trust in Florida we would love to hear from you. Our attorneys represent beneficiaries and trustees in Trust Litigation throughout the State of Florida and we offer free, no obligation consultations.
-Brice Zoecklein, Esq.
813-501-5071
