Ammeen v. Sjogren
| Decision Date | 11 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D19-4017,1D19-4017 |
| Parties | Jeffrey AMMEEN, Appellant, v. Wade SJOGREN, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Kirsten Ammeen and Issue Year 2002 Trust, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William S. Graessle and Jonathan W. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville; Daniel J. Hurteau of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Albany, NY, for Appellant.
Harris L. Bonnette of Fisher, Tousey, Leas & Ball, P.A., Jacksonville; Darren H. Goldstein of Lex Nova Law, LLC, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Appellee.
Appellant Jeffrey Ammeen, as guardian and father of J.A. and A.A., sued appellee Wade Sjogren, trustee for the Kirsten Ammeen and Issue Year 2002 Trust (the Trust), for breach of trust. The Duval County Circuit Court ultimately entered final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, finding the trust beneficiary, J.A.’s and A.A.’s mother Kirsten Ammeen (Kirsten), had consented to the relinquishment of any interests in, and the termination of, the Trust in 2009. In doing so, Kirsten bound J.A. and A.A., who were permissible appointees, not beneficiaries, of the Trust. The court concluded J.A. and A.A. lacked standing to sue the appellee for breach of trust. We affirm the final summary judgment for the following reasons.
The appellant and Kirsten were married in 2001 and divorced in 2008. They shared two daughters, J.A. and A.A. In 2002, Kirsten's mother, Jane Sjogren (the Settlor), established the Trust. Kirsten was the trust beneficiary and held a testamentary power of appointment over the Trust, exercisable at her death and only in her will. The Trust contained the following relevant provisions:
In 2007, disputes arose within the Settlor's family over various family assets, which led to Kirsten and her two sisters (the sisters) suing the appellee and another brother (the brothers), as well as the Settlor.
On June 23, 2009, the parties entered into a mediated Settlement Agreement, which they read in open court in New Jersey. The Settlement gave the brothers all interest in a company called Whibco, Inc., while the sisters each took interest in a company called Land Associates, LLC. To accomplish the transfer of assets, the sisters agreed to transfer their interests (along with their spouses’ and children's interests) in their individual 2002 trusts1 to the brothers and the Settlor. The Settlement authorized the appellee to take various discretionary actions to enforce it.
Thereafter, disputes arose over the Settlement, and the parties proceeded to binding arbitration. In 2014, a New Jersey court found the Settlement was valid, binding, and enforceable. The court noted that because Florida law was implicated, a Florida court needed to declare that no provision of the Settlement was illegal or unenforceable.
In March 2015, Kirsten died without a will. The appellant opened an intestate estate for her and was appointed guardian of the estates of J.A. and A.A.
In August 2015, the Duval County Circuit Court found Kirsten's estate was bound by the terms of the Settlement. The court found the sisters consented to the appellee exercising his power to terminate each of their 2002 trusts in order to effectuate the Settlement and such exercise of this power was not a breach of his fiduciary duty to the sisters. In 2016, after receiving confirmation under Florida law, the New Jersey court entered a final order effectuating the Settlement.
Earlier in 2016, the appellant had initiated the breach of trust lawsuit against the appellee in Duval County. The Duval County Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of the appellee. The court found that Kirsten had consented to the relinquishment of any interests in, and the termination of, the Trust before her death and that her interests were deemed to have passed on June 23, 2009, when the Settlement was entered in open court. The court found J.A. and A.A. were only permissible appointees before 2009 and were not beneficiaries; therefore, they were bound under section 736.0302(1), Florida Statutes (2019), to Kirsten's relinquishment of rights. The court granted final summary judgment in favor of the appellee because J.A. and A.A. lacked standing to sue for breach of trust. This appeal followed.
We review the final summary judgment de novo . Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. , 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).
Most of the appellant's arguments on appeal rely on two assumptions in order to be successful. First, the appellant assumes that the Settlement was not valid, binding, or enforceable until, at earliest, the 2015 Florida court order finding the Settlement valid or, later, the 2016 New Jersey court order effectuating the Settlement. This assumption has already been rejected numerous times. Not only in the order on appeal, but also by several previous orders finding the Settlement was binding on the parties in 2009.2 The Settlement was binding and enforceable when it was entered into open court in New Jersey on June 23, 2009. See Pascarella v. Bruck , 190 N.J.Super. 118, 462 A.2d 186, 189 (App. Div. 1983). By the time of Kirsten's death in 2015, six years had passed since she relinquished any right she had in the Trust.
To continue reading
Request your trial