Zuckerman v. Alter
Florida Supreme Court
615 So. 2d 661 (1993)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Celia Kahn’s will devised her residuary estate to her nieces, Sharon Zuckerman and Beverly Kanter (plaintiffs). Kahn placed her brokerage account, which was her most valuable asset, into a revocable inter vivos trust under which the trust assets would pass to Jack Alter (defendant) upon her death. Kahn was the trust’s settlor, sole trustee, and lifetime beneficiary. The trust was signed by Kahn and notarized in Florida, but its execution was not witnessed. Following Kahn’s death, Zuckerman and Kanter petitioned to have the trust invalidated because it contained testamentary aspects but failed to comply with Florida’s will-execution requirements. The circuit court held that the trust was invalid and ruled that the brokerage account must pass through the residuary estate. Alter appealed, and the district court reversed, ruling the trust was valid as executed because it did not contain testamentary aspects and complied with Florida’s execution requirements for revocable trusts established by a settlor who was also the sole trustee. The district court then certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court as to what test should be used to determine the validity of revocable trusts for which the settlor was the sole trustee.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McDonald, 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. 46,500 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.