Mesler v. Holly
Florida District Court of Appeal
318 So. 2d 530 (1975)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Frederick Way created an inter vivos trust and named himself and Elaine Holly (defendant) as cotrustees. Way and Holly were also the trust’s beneficiaries for the rest of their lives. After both Way and Holly died, the trust’s remaining assets would go to Way’s great-grandchildren (plaintiffs). However, while Holly was alive, the declaration of trust stated that the trustees had “absolute discretion” to spend the trust’s principal and income as necessary to maintain the standard of living to which Holly was accustomed. Two years later, Way died, and his residuary estate was placed into the trust. O. Ray Gussler (defendant) replaced Way as Holly’s cotrustee, but Holly performed most of the trust’s management. Way’s great-grandchildren sued Holly and Gussler for violating their duties as trustees to protect the trust’s assets for the trust’s remaindermen, i.e., the great-grandchildren. Specifically, the great-grandchildren claimed that Holly and Gussler had distributed more of the trust’s principal to Holly than was necessary to maintain the lifestyle that Holly had when the trust was created. The trial court found that the trust’s grant of absolute discretion meant that Holly and Gussler had no duty to spend the trust’s assets reasonably or to try to save any assets for the trust’s remaindermen. Because Holly and Gussler had no duties that they could have breached, the trial court dismissed the case. The great-grandchildren appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McNulty, C.J.)
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.