Megiel-Rollo v. Megiel

Margaret Megiel’s 1992 will did not specifically devise her Punta Gorda residence but left her residuary estate to her three children, Denise (plaintiff), Robert, and Sharon (defendant). In 1997, Margaret executed the P.M. Revocable Trust, under which she was the initial trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary, and executed a warranty deed properly transferring the Punta Gorda residence to herself as trustee. Upon Margaret’s death, the trust dictated that the trust’s assets would pass to the successor beneficiaries listed in the Schedule of Beneficial Interests. However, Vincent Rollo, Denise’s husband and Margaret’s trust attorney, failed to prepare and attach the Schedule of Beneficial Interests to the trust instrument. Rollo testified that Margaret had instructed him to list Denise and Robert as the successor beneficiaries of the trust and to exclude Sharon. After Margaret’s death, Sharon moved to have the trust declared void and the Punta Gorda residence distributed in accordance with the terms of Margaret’s will, arguing (1) the failure to include the Schedule of Beneficial Interests caused Margaret to be the trust’s sole trustee and sole beneficiary, triggering the merger doctrine and extinguishing the trust; and (2) trust reformation can only address simple scrivener’s errors and not complex, substantive errors. Denise countered, arguing reformation was appropriate because Margaret executed the trust under the mistaken belief that it contained the Schedule of Beneficial Interests naming Denise and Robert as the successor beneficiaries. The trial court granted Sharon summary judgment, ruling the trust was void ab initio for failing to name definite beneficiaries. Denise appealed.