JEANNE CHITTY CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JEANNETTE Z. CHITTY REVOCABLE TRUST, AS TRUSTEE U/W HENRY M. CHITTY, JR., AND AS TRUSTEE U/W LOUISE S. ZETROUER, AND CHITTY-ALACHUA, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, STARDUST ANGUS RANCH, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, STARDUST ANGUS RANCH, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, STARDUST ANGUS RANCH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CHITTY-MARION, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND CHAD E. CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY M. CHITTY, III, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2012-12-05
No. 1D12-0861
DAVIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
131 So. 3d 9 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Appellants challenge a trial court order liquidating trust assets and imposing monetary sanctions against Jeanne Chitty Campbell for breach of fiduciary duty as trustee of three trusts. The appellate court reverses the damages awards, finding that the trial court failed to make required negligence findings under an indemnification clause and improperly imposed double recovery by both requiring repayment and offsetting against the trustee's share.


Holding

The court reversed all damages imposed for breach of the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust because the trial court failed to make a finding that Mrs. Campbell's actions were negligent as required by the indemnification clause. The court also reversed the remaining money judgments because the trial court imposed double recovery by both directing Mrs. Campbell to repay amounts and setting those amounts off against her trust share.


Headnotes

[1] A trustee is not liable for damages or liabilities arising from their actions or omissions if the trust instrument contains an indemnification clause, provided those acti…

[2] A trial court must make specific factual findings regarding negligence before awarding damages for a trustee's breach of a trust containing an indemnification clause for…

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“However, the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust contained an indemnification clause that held the trustee harmless from any damages or liabilities for the trustee's actions or omissions as long as the trustee's actions or omissions were not negligent.”

Establishes the indemnification clause that protects the trustee unless actions were negligent

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jeanne Chitty Campbell served as trustee of the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust, the Henry M. Chitty, Jr. Trust, and the Louise Zetrouer Trust. Th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the trial court’s final order directing the liquidation of trust assets and imposing monetary sanctions against Jeanne Chitty Campbell for breach of her fiduciary duty as trustee of the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust, the Henry M. Chitty, Jr. Trust, and the Louise Zetrouer Trust. Appellants raise several issues on appeal; however, we write only to address the issues arising from the imposition of money judgments against Mrs. *10Campbell. All other issues on appeal are affirmed without further comment.

In this case, the trial court awarded Appellee damages for Mrs. Campbell’s breach of the above-named trusts. However, the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust contained an indemnification clause that held the trustee harmless from any damages or liabilities for the trustee’s actions or omissions as long as the trustee’s actions or omissions were not negligent. In this case, the trial court never made a finding that Mrs. Campbell’s actions as trustee of the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust were negligent. Thus, all of the damages, including attorney’s fees, imposed for breach of this trust are reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to make factual findings as to whether or not Mrs. Campbell’s actions rose to the level of negligence. The court may only award damages for the breach of the Jeannette Z. Chitty Revocable Trust if it finds that Mrs. Campbell’s actions were negligent.

The remaining money judgments imposed against Mrs. Campbell are also reversed. The trial court not only directed Mrs. Campbell to repay certain amounts to the trusts, but it also directed those amounts to be set off from Mrs. Campbell’s share of the trust. Thus, the trial court essentially awarded Appellee double recovery on all of the judgments. Accordingly, we reverse the remaining money judgments and remand for the trial court to enter an order directing Mrs. Campbell to repay the designated amounts or for those amounts to be set off against her share of the trust. Based on the reasoning in this opinion, we granted, by separate order, Appellant’s oral motion to stay the final judgment because liquidation of the real property is premature until the trial court can ascertain Appellant’s ultimate liability to the trust.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 148 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
    …l Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d [*812] 772, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). To obtain a stay, the moving party must establish “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) a likelihood of harm absent the entry of a stay.” Id. (citing Campbell v. Chitty, 131 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). We believe that Planned Parenthood has proved both. First, it is apparent that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it enjoined Planned Parenthood from providing…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw