LEVIS PROVOST, MARQUIS PROVOST, AND CONSTANCE MONTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH JUSTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST AGREEMENT OF AURELE PROVOST AND GERALDINE E. PROVOST U/A DATED MARCH 6, 1989, AND SHARON L. HARSCH, F/K/A SHARON METZ, APPELLEE
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.
The court addressed whether a surviving trustor could unilaterally amend a joint revocable trust to redirect assets away from the original beneficiaries (the settlor's children) to a foster child and caregiver. The court held that both grantors were required to execute any amendment, rendering the unilateral amendment ineffective.
The court held that both grantors were required to execute any amendment to the trust. Because Aurele Provost (who predeceased Geraldine) did not execute the amendment, the amendment was ineffective and unenforceable.
[1] The polestar of trust interpretation is the settlors' intent.
[2] In determining settlors' intent, a court should construe the trust instrument as a whole, taking into account the general dispositional scheme, rather than resorting to i…
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“The polestar of trust interpretation is the settlors' intent.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing how courts should interpret trusts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 1989, Aurele Provost and Geraldine Provost established a revocable trust naming their three children (Levis, Marquis, and Constance) as benef…
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 Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
In March 1989, Aurele Provost and Geraldine Provost, husband and wife, established a trust that listed as beneficiaries the three children of Aurele Provost, Appellants Marquis Provost, Constance Monty, and Levis Provost (the Trust). Aurele Provost passed away in March 1994. On July 9, 2001, Geraldine Provost executed a document that purported to amend the Trust to distribute the first $10,000 in trust assets to Appellee Sharon Metz,1 Geraldine Provost’s former foster child, and the remaining assets to her caregiver, Appellee Elizabeth Justin. After Geraldine Provost’s death on July 7, 2005, the children of Aurele Provost filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking to set aside the amendment.2 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Elizabeth Justin and Sharon Harsch. We reverse.
“The polestar of trust interpretation is the settlors’ intent.” L’Argent v. Barnett Bank, N.A., 730 So.2d 395, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “In determining the settlors’ intent, the court should not ‘resort to isolated words and phrases’; instead, the court should construe ‘the instrument as a whole,’ taking into account the general dispositional scheme.” Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The parties agree that these principles apply to the case at hand and rely on both LArgent and Roberts in disputing the interpretation this court should give to the Trust.
As in L'Argent, the Trust contains language that limits the right of amendment to the grantors “during their lives.” See 730 So.2d at 397. Based on our review of the entire Trust document, we conclude that both grantors needed to execute any amendment to the Trust. Because Aurele Provost did not execute the amendment prepared by Geraldine Provost, the amendment is ineffective. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Appellees Elizabeth Justin and Sharon Harsch and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Appellants Levis Provost, Marquis Provost, and Constance Monty.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Annmary K. Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- John v. L'Argent, 730 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)