Herskowitz v. Smith (In re Estate of Herskowitz)
Florida District Court of Appeal
338 So. 2d 210 (1976)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Bernard Herskowitz, decedent, executed a will leaving over $500,000 to a testamentary trust for the benefit of his minor children, Robert and Mark. Bernard named his brother, Marvin Herskowitz (plaintiff), as the trustee and executor of the estate. Following Bernard’s death, Sam Smith (defendant) was appointed Robert and Mark’s guardian ad litem. After the family allowance was expended, Smith petitioned the probate court to require Marvin, in his capacity as executor, to fund the testamentary trust, arguing that it constituted a support trust and Marvin should therefore be required to make regular support payments for the benefit of Robert and Mark. Marvin objected, arguing that he had sole discretion as the trustee to determine the payment of trust funds. The probate court held for Smith, ruling that (1) Bernard’s will demonstrated an intent to create a support trust for Robert and Mark, (2) the estate was liquid and had sufficient funds to pay all creditors and administration costs, and (3) Marvin’s refusal to fund the trust was arbitrary and capricious. The probate court ordered Marvin, as executor and trustee, to make a sufficient monetary distribution to himself as trustee of the trust and then to start making monthly support payments for Robert and Mark. Marvin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.