Risolia v. First National Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Risolia v. First National Bank

224 So. 2d 714, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5560

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 1969

DocketNos. 68-818, 68-819

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 224 So. 2d 714 (Risolia v. First National Bank) 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

Risolia v. First National Bank, 224 So. 2d 714, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is a beneficiary of a residuary trust created by the will of Carlyle Feldmann, who died in 1959. The testator’s will created two trusts. One was a general legacy to the trustees with provision for payment of the income therefrom to his widow (Irene Feldmann) for life.¹ The other, the residuary trust under which the appellant claims, directed payment of $100 per month to the testator’s brother Roy R. Feldmann, during his lifetime, and that the balance of the net income be paid quarterly to the appellant.

On December 13, 1965, the appellant sued in the circuit court for declaratory decree to determine whether, under the will, the income which accrued during the prolonged period of “administration” of the estate should go to the widow or should become a part of the residuary trust. Provisions of the will as to the property to be included in the first trust had delayed the final determination of the assets thereof.

By a judgment dated December 14, 1967, as amended on rehearing by an order dated July 8, 1968, the circuit court held that the right of the widow as beneficiary of the first trust to receive the interest therefrom “immediately vests so that any income from trust assets begins upon testator’s death, although the specific assets are of necessity not determined until later.” Appellant filed separate appeals therefrom.

[715]*715In so holding the trial court was eminently correct. The widow’s right to receive the income was conferred by the will. The fact that the amount of the income from the trust property for those intervening years could not be determined at the time was no reason to deprive the widow of the income she was entitled to receive for such period when the amount later is determined. The decision of the trial court conforms to the provisions of § 733.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. applicable in such circumstances.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is a beneficiary of a residuary trust created by the will of Carlyle Feldmann, who died in 1959. The testator’s will created two trusts. One was a general legacy to the trustees with provision for payment of the income therefrom to his widow (Irene Feldmann) for life.¹ The other, the residuary trust under which the appellant claims, directed payment of $100 per month to the testator’s brother Roy R. Feldmann, during his lifetime, and that the balance of the net income be paid quarterly to the appellant.

On December 13, 1965, the appellant sued in the circuit court for declaratory decree to determine whether, under the will, the income which accrued during the prolonged period of “administration” of the estate should go to the widow or should become a part of the residuary trust. Provisions of the will as to the property to be included in the first trust had delayed the final determination of the assets thereof.

By a judgment dated December 14, 1967, as amended on rehearing by an order dated July 8, 1968, the circuit court held that the right of the widow as beneficiary of the first trust to receive the interest therefrom “immediately vests so that any income from trust assets begins upon testator’s death, although the specific assets are of necessity not determined until later.” Appellant filed separate appeals therefrom.

[715]*715In so holding the trial court was eminently correct. The widow’s right to receive the income was conferred by the will. The fact that the amount of the income from the trust property for those intervening years could not be determined at the time was no reason to deprive the widow of the income she was entitled to receive for such period when the amount later is determined. The decision of the trial court conforms to the provisions of § 733.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. applicable in such circumstances.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 So. 2d 714, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/risolia-v-first-national-bank-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack