Berlinger v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
| Decision Date | 16 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:11-cv-459-FtM-29CM |
| Parties | STACEY SUE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts aka Stacey Berlinger O'Connor, BRIAN BRUCE BERLINGER aka Stacey Berlinger O'Connor, and HEATHER ANNE BERLINGER, as Beneficiaries to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and all of its related trusts aka Stacey Berlinger O'Connor, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., as Corporate Trustee to the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust, and all of its related trusts, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff v. BRUCE D. BERLINGER and SUE CASSELBERRY, Third Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #360) and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs (Doc. #364).The parties have filed Responses, depositions, a supplement, and other exhibits in support of their respective motions. (Docs. ##359, 378, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384, 457, 477.)
Also before the Court are additional cross-motions for summary judgment: (1) Third Party Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank N.A.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment against Third Party Defendants Bruce D. Berlinger and Sue Casselberry (Doc. #363); (2) Third Party Defendant, Bruce D. Berlinger's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #358); and (3) Third Party Defendant, Sue Casselberry's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #362). The parties have filed Responses, affidavits, and other exhibits in support of their respective motions. (Docs. ##361, 365, 366, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382, 385.)
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the Court is satisfied that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "An issue of fact is 'genuine' if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). A fact is "material" if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "A court must decide 'whether the evidence presents a sufficientdisagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 772 (11th Cir. 2010). However, "if reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then the court should deny summary judgment." St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815, 819 (11th Cir. 1999) (). "If a reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the court should not grant summary judgment." Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 495 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs Stacey Sue Berlinger (Stacey), Brian Bruce Berlinger (Brian), and Heather Anne Berlinger (Heather)(collectively plaintiffs) are the children of Bruce D. Berlinger (Bruce) and Sue Casselberry (Sue). (Doc. #366, ¶ 61.) The current litigation involves three family trusts: the Rosa B. Schweiker Family Trust, the Frederick W. Berlinger Family Trust, and the Rose S. Berlinger Family Trust (collectively the Berlinger Trusts). In their Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #93) plaintiffs assert they are present beneficiaries of the Berlinger Trusts. Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of trust (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), and civil theft (Count III) against Wells Fargo N.A. (Wells Fargo) as the former corporate trustee of the Berlinger Trusts. The Court dismissed Count III in a previous Order (Doc. #220) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment as to the portion of Counts I and II relating to trust distributions for alimony. (Doc. #360.) Wells Fargo moves for summary judgment on Counts I and II in their entirety. (Doc. #364.)
Wells Fargo filed a Third Party Complaint (Doc. #60) against Bruce and Sue, asserting a claim of contribution (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count II) against Bruce, and a claim of unjust enrichment (Count III) against Sue. Wells Fargo, Sue, and Bruce each now move for summary judgment on the Third Party Complaint. (Docs. #358, 362, 363.)
Resolution of the issues in this case involves an examination of the provisions of various family trusts for four generations of the Berlinger family, going back to 1961. The relevant family tree looks something like this:
Image materials not available for display.
On February 2, 1961, Rosa B. Schweiker (Rosa) signed a will (Doc. #93-1) which provided that all her tangible personality other than currency be given to her daughter, Rose S. Berlinger, and provided a token cash amount to another individual. (Id. at §§ 1-2.) The residue of Rosa's estate was to be given to her trustees, in trust (the Rosa Trust). (Id. at § 3.) During Rose's life, the corporate trustee was to pay the Trust income "to such of mydaughter [Rose] and her issue as my corporate trustee selects and in such proportion as it determines without being required to maintain equality among them . . . ." (Id.) The provision continued that "my corporate trustee shall bear in mind, in allocating income from time to time among my daughter and her issues, that my daughter is the primary object of my bounty and that it is my intention that it shall not be charged with an abuse of its discretion should it pay all of the income to my daughter." (Id.)
The Rosa Trust further provided that upon Rose's death the corporate trustee was to pay the principal of the trust as Rose directed by express reference in her will. If there was no such express provision in Rose's will, the trustee was to hold all principal in trust in accordance with certain instructions: During the life of Bruce Berlinger (Rosa's grandson and Rose's son), the trustee was to pay income from the principal "to such of my grandson and his issue as my corporate trustee selects and in such proportion as it determines without being required to maintain equality among my grandson and his issue, . . . ." (Id.) The provision continued, stating that "my corporate trustee shall bear in mind, in allocating income from time to time among my grandson and his issues, that after the death of my daughter my grandson will be the primary object of my bounty and that it is my intentionthat it shall not be charged with an abuse of its discretion should it pay all of the income to my grandson." (Id.)
Among other powers, the Rosa Trust allowed the corporate trustee to invade the principal: "To apply for the benefit of a beneficiary, in such manner as my corporate fiduciary deems appropriate, as much of the principal, the income of which it has authority to pay to the beneficiary or to the income of which the beneficiary is entitled, as, without considering the beneficiary's individual property, it determines is required for his comfortable maintenance . . . ." (Id. at § 6(f).) During Rose's lifetime this invasion of principal was restricted as follows: "[T]he principal shall not be invaded for the benefit of a beneficiary other than my daughter unless my daughter is incapable in my corporate fiduciary's judgment of managing her own affairs and then only for the purpose of enabling such other beneficiary to meet an emergency, such as illness, for the meeting of which funds of his own of a substantial nature are not reasonably available." (Id.) The invasion of principal was also restricted after Rose's death: "My corporate trustee shall be similarly guided as to invasion of principal after the death of my daughter and during the life of my grandson should a question then arise as to invasion of principal for the benefit of a beneficiary other than my grandson." (Id.)
As to investments, the Rosa Trust provided that the Trustee had the additional power "to retain any property and to purchase such real or personal property as they select without being confined to investments legal for trustees and without being under any obligation to diversity investments, to minimize risk, or to produce income . . . ." (Id. at § 6(a).)
The Rosa Trust further directed "[t]hat interests of beneficiaries shall not be subject to anticipation or to voluntary or involuntary alienation, and the protection afforded by this paragraph shall be effective both as to principal and income until actual payment to the beneficiary." (Id. at § 4.) Further, the discretions conferred relating to the allocation of income among beneficiaries, allocations of receipts and disbursements between principal and income, and invasion of principal "shall not be exercised by an individual fiduciary who can derive direct or indict benefit from such exercise." (Id. at § 6.)1
On September 23, 1978, Rosa's grandson Bruce Berlinger married Sue C. Casselberry in Orlando, Florida. Three childrenwere born of this marriage, being plaintiffs Stacey, Brian, and Heather Berlinger. (Doc. #359-1, §§ 1.1, 2.1.)
Frederick W. Berlinger (Frederick) was the husband of Rose Berlinger and the father of Bruce Berlinger. In December, 1988, Frederick...
To continue reading
Request your trial