Hadassah v. Melcer
Florida District Court of Appeal
268 So. 3d 759 (2019)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1989, Sylvia Gelt created an irrevocable trust providing that upon her death, a portion of the trust fund would be placed in trust for Gelt’s husband. Upon the husband’s death, the balance of the trust would be divided into three separate trusts for the benefit of the couple’s three daughters (defendants). The daughters had the right to receive income and principal distributions during their lifetimes from their respective trusts. Upon the death of each daughter, her trust would terminate, and the balance of the principal and any undistributed income would be redistributed to the trust or trusts of the remaining living daughter or daughters. When the last daughter died, Gelt’s trust would terminate, and the trustee, Stephen Melcer (plaintiff), was instructed to distribute the remainder to three named charities (defendants). After Sylvia and her husband died, Melcer sought to resign and sued the three living daughters and the named charities, which Melcer alleged were qualified beneficiaries under the Florida Trust Code (FTC). The daughters filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the charities were not qualified beneficiaries. The court found in favor of the daughters, and one of the charities appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kanner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
