Crescenze v. Bothe
| Decision Date | 04 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-2202.,2D08-2202. |
| Citation | 4 So.3d 31 |
| Parties | Cynthia CRESCENZE, Appellant, v. E. Marie BOTHE, and Pamela Jean Hansen, individually and as trustee and beneficiary of the Bothe Family Revocable Trust Agreement, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cynthia Crescenze appeals a circuit court order denying her motion to intervene in a suit to terminate or revoke a trust in which she is a beneficiary. We reverse the order on appeal for the reasons explained below.
Crescenze is one of several beneficiaries of the Bothe Family Revocable Trust Agreement, executed by Andreas Bothe (the decedent) and his wife, Pamela Hansen, during their marriage. Both the decedent and Hansen were named as trustees of the trust. The decedent also executed a will during their marriage, which named Hansen as the sole heir and included a pour-over clause bequeathing all of the decedent's estate to the trust in the event that Pamela Hansen predeceased the decedent.
The decedent and Hansen subsequently divorced, and the decedent died seven days later on March 22, 2006, making the bequest to Hansen in the will void pursuant to section 732.507(2), Florida Statutes (2005).
The decedent's mother, E. Marie Bothe, filed suit to terminate or revoke the trust, naming Hansen as the only defendant. Crescenze and the other beneficiaries were not joined in or provided notice of the suit to terminate or revoke the trust. The circuit court consolidated the suit to terminate or revoke the trust with the probate proceeding.
On March 20, 2008, the circuit court entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Bothe terminating the trust. On March 27, 2008, Crescenze filed a motion to intervene, which was denied on April 11, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the circuit court entered final summary judgment in favor of Bothe terminating the trust.1
On appeal, Crescenze argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to intervene. We agree. Crescenze is a beneficiary of the trust, and "Florida has long followed the rule that the beneficiaries of a trust are indispensable parties to a suit having the termination of the beneficiaries' interest as its ultimate goal." Fulmer v. N. Cent. Bank, 386 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown-Thill v. Brown
...ward was necessary party in action by others to remove the trustee and terminate the source of the trust's assets); Crescenze v. Bothe, 4 So.3d 31 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2009) (in action to terminate a trust, beneficiaries were necessary parties to a suit having the termination of the beneficiari......
-
Scherer v. Austin Roe Basquill, P.A.
...the client with whom the attorney or firm contracted to perform services and from whom payment is being sought. See Crescenze v. Bothe , 4 So. 3d 31, 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("Indispensable parties are necessary parties so essential to a suit that no final decision can be rendered without the......
-
Brown v. Brown-Thill
...787 F.2d 1490, 1494 (11th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Griley v. Marion Mortg. Co., 132 Fla. 299, 182 So. 297, 300 (1937); Crescenze v. Bothe, 4 So.3d 31, 32–33 (Fla.App.2009); Riggs v. Moise, 344 Mo. 177, 128 S.W.2d 632, 636 (Mo. banc 1939); Davis, 243 S.W.3d at 429–30; Weldon Revocable Trust v......
- Butler v. Saunders