Mariani v. Mariani

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mariani v. Mariani

125 So. 3d 222, 2013 WL 440105, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1852

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2013

DocketNo. 4D11-3659

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 So. 3d 222 (Mariani v. Mariani) 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.

Bluebook

Mariani v. Mariani, 125 So. 3d 222, 2013 WL 440105, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1852 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant Michael Mariani appeals an order denying his motion for summary judgment, which resulted in a final judgment disposing his entire case. The court below found that appellant is not a current beneficiary under the “clear” and “plain language” of the Jane Mariani Irrevocable Wealth Trust (“Trust”) and therefore is ineligible to request or receive discretionary distributions from, the Trust. We disagree. As the trial court was construing the plain language of the Trust, the standard of review is de novo. Burgess v. Prince, 25 So.3d 705, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We find that the terms of the Trust are ambiguous with regard to whether the settlor intended that her grandchild, the appellant, would be eligible to receive discretionary distributions during the lifetime of his father, a clear current beneficiary under the Trust. As disputed issues of fact remained, summary judgment was improper. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. See Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 405 (Fla.1978) (when the trust instrument is ambiguous, the intent of the settlor may be ascertained from extrinsic evidence).

Reversed and remanded.

GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant Michael Mariani appeals an order denying his motion for summary judgment, which resulted in a final judgment disposing his entire case. The court below found that appellant is not a current beneficiary under the “clear” and “plain language” of the Jane Mariani Irrevocable Wealth Trust (“Trust”) and therefore is ineligible to request or receive discretionary distributions from, the Trust. We disagree. As the trial court was construing the plain language of the Trust, the standard of review is de novo. Burgess v. Prince, 25 So.3d 705, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We find that the terms of the Trust are ambiguous with regard to whether the settlor intended that her grandchild, the appellant, would be eligible to receive discretionary distributions during the lifetime of his father, a clear current beneficiary under the Trust. As disputed issues of fact remained, summary judgment was improper. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. See Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 405 (Fla.1978) (when the trust instrument is ambiguous, the intent of the settlor may be ascertained from extrinsic evidence).

Reversed and remanded.

GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 3d 222, 2013 WL 440105, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mariani-v-mariani-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack