MAUREEN STRAUB, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONSBANK AND ROBERT S. ALLEN, AS CO-TRUSTEES, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida beneficiary of a testamentary trust administered in Missouri sued the co-trustees in Florida for alleged improper conduct. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida courts lack authority under statute to entertain trust administration proceedings when the trust is registered or administered in another state and all interested parties can be bound in that state's courts.
Florida courts lack jurisdiction to entertain trust administration proceedings under section 737.203 when the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration in another state, unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of that state. Dismissal was appropriate here because Missouri had jurisdiction over the trust administration.
[1] A Florida court shall not entertain proceedings concerning the administration of a trust registered or having its principal place of administration in another state, unle…
[2] A court may dismiss or stay proceedings involving a foreign trust upon a showing that the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration in another stat…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Over the objection of a party, the court shall not entertain proceedings under s. 737.201 for a trust registered, or having its principal place of administration, in another state unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration.”
Statutory basis for dismissal of foreign trust proceedings under Florida law; establishes the rule limiting Florida court jurisdiction over trusts administered elsewhere.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Maureen Straub is a Florida resident and beneficiary of a testamentary trust created pursuant to the will of a Missouri resident. The trust …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trust Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant is the beneficiary of a testamentary trust which is being administered by the appellee co-trustees in Missouri. The trust was created pursuant to the will of a resident of Missouri whose estate was probated in Missouri. Appellant, a resident of Florida, brought this suit alleging improper conduct by the trustees. We conclude that the trial court was correct in dismissing the case.
This is an action involving the administration of a trust which is governed by section 737.201, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 737.203, entitled “Trust proceedings; dismissal of matters relating to foreign trusts.” provides:
Over the objection of a party, the court shall not entertain proceedings under s. 737.201 for a trust registered, or having its principal place of administration, in another state unless all interested parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration. The court may condition a stay or dismissal of a proceeding under this section on the consent of any party to jurisdiction of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of business, or the court may grant a continuance or enter any other appropriate order. Appellee trustees moved to abate or dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds as well as improper venue under section 737.203. The trial court granted the motion, stating that the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the representation of the trustees that Missouri would have jurisdiction over the action. Appellant primarily argues that the order was wrong in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. We need not reach that argument because we conclude that dismissal should have been ordered under section 737.203. We therefore affirm.
GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ, concur.