Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, Etc.
This text of Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, Etc. (Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
MARGARITA CHESS and DAVID CHESS, Appellants,
v.
JAMES P. COVEY, as Trustee of the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST u/a/d December 22, 2010, the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS IRREVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d March 12, 2013, and ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS, Appellees.
No. 4D2024-3267
[May 6, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Michael Joseph McNicholas, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432024CA000125CAAXMX.
Jonathan Thomas Mann and Robin I. Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Robert Jeffrey Hauser of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Edward Downey and Robert Lee McElroy, IV, of Downey │ McElroy, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of a dispute over trust expenditures for a disabled adult who is under the care of the appellants, his parents. The trustee sought the circuit court’s resolution of multiple disagreements between himself and the appellants. We dismiss the appeal to the extent the appellants seek review of the portion of the circuit court’s order addressing compensation for the parents’ caregiving, as the face of the order reflects that judicial labor has not ended on that matter. We otherwise affirm.
The appellants argue the circuit court abused its discretion in determinations it made regarding the sale of the Fort Pierce residential condominium and reimbursement for a truck purchase. We affirm on those points, as the record does not reflect an abuse of discretion. The appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding the parties stipulated to reallocation of the trust’s investments in a specified manner. However, we see no error. The hearing transcript reflects that the parties agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy” for investing the trust’s assets, and they disagreed as to which of five options should be used in implementing the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order, read in the context of statements made at the hearing, indicates the parties agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order does not indicate that the parties agreed to any one of five options. Finally, based on the record, including statements made during the hearing, we find the circuit court did not violate due process by ordering the sale of an office condominium.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margarita-chess-and-david-chess-v-james-p-covey-as-trustee-etc-fladistctapp-2026.