Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 13, 1997; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made following an order that granted SunTrust Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings while denying Rosalie Lewis's motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment as personal representative of Bertha Carlson's estate. The court affirmed the decision. Bertha Carlson established an inter vivos revocable trust in 1986, naming SunTrust as trustee, and retained the right to amend or revoke the trust. She made four amendments, with the last on December 22, 1992, which did not change the trustee. On the same day, she executed a will that included provisions directing the sale of her residence and homestead, which was not mentioned in the trust, and granted her personal representative and trustee broad powers regarding estate property. Lewis, named as personal representative and trustee in the will, sought to remove SunTrust as trustee by claiming the will modified the trust. SunTrust contended it remained the trustee, leading to the court's hearing where SunTrust's motion was granted. On appeal, Lewis argued that the will superseded the trust's trustee designation. The court found that the terms of the trust were not incorporated by reference in the will, as the statutory requirement for clear intent and identification was not met. A mere reference to the trust in the will was deemed insufficient to manifest an intention for incorporation.
The legal precedent indicates that mere references in a will or trust, without clear intent to incorporate, are insufficient for legal purposes. In *Martin v. Martin*, references to an inter vivos trust in a will did not demonstrate intent to incorporate the trust, as seen in *In re Estate of Corbin*, where general language failed to revoke previously established Totten trusts. Similarly, a general reference to "bank accounts" in a will was inadequate to revoke a Totten trust, per *Serpa v. North Ridge Bank*. In the current case, the decedent's appointment of Lewis as personal representative and trustee was not enough to indicate a desire to replace SunTrust as trustee. Despite amending the trust and being aware of its terms, the decedent did not explicitly reference the inter vivos trust in her will. Consequently, it was determined that there was no clear intent to incorporate the trust into the will or to allow the will to supersede the trust, leading to the affirmation of the order under review.
The will included provisions for the decedent's residence, directing the trustee to sell the property and distribute proceeds per Article IV. Article V granted the trustee broad discretionary powers concerning property management, while Article VI appointed Rosalie M. Lewis as personal representative and trustee, with Joseph D. Stasi as an alternate. The litigation arose because the will guaranteed trustee fees for 20 years. Comparisons were made to *Yoakley v. Raese* and other cases, emphasizing that a trust's provisions do not override statutory requirements for tax payment designations unless explicitly stated in the will.
