Boyles v. Jimenez
| Decision Date | 08 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4D20-1201,4D20-1042 |
| Parties | KEVAN BOYLES and ROSEMARY COONEY, Appellants, v. JOSE IVAN JIMENEZ and CAROL ANN DYBDAL, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Renatha Francis, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2017-CP-004460-XXXX-MB and 50-2018-CA-000067-XXXX-MB.
Rosemary Cooney of Probate, Guardianship, &Trust, P.A. West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Peter Ticktin, Jamie Alan Sasson and Michael McCormick, Jr. of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellees.
Appellant Kevan Boyles appeals the trial court's entry of final summary judgment against him, removing him as trustee of the testatrix's revocable trust and as putative personal representative of her estate under the terms of a 2015 will. Appellant Rosemary Cooney appeals from a related denial of her petition for administration of the estate and her motion to be substituted as successor party to Boyles in a challenge to the testatrix's 2017 will. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments and the record, we affirm on all issues raised on appeal.
On October 9, 2015, Margaret Ann Trevarthen ("the testatrix") executed a will ("the 2015 will") and a revocable trust ("the 2015 trust"). Both documents were prepared by Boyles, in his capacity as the testatrix's attorney. The 2015 will and the 2015 trust named Boyles as personal representative and trustee respectively, and his wife, Cooney (also an attorney), as successor personal representative and successor trustee.
The terms of the 2015 trust gave the testatrix "the absolute right to amend or revoke my trust, in whole or in part, at any time." Moreover, in a section titled "The Removal of a Trustee," the 2015 trust provided that "[a]ny trustee may be removed [after the testatrix's death by] a majority of the beneficiaries then eligible to receive mandatory or discretionary distributions of net income under this Agreement ...."
Two days after signing and executing the trust documents, the testatrix signed documents revoking the 2015 trust. The revocation was witnessed by a notary, with the witness stating in an affidavit that the testatrix represented that she knew what she was signing and did so "at her own free will" because "her financial affairs had been assigned to [Boyles] who had not been returning her calls" and "she didn't want [him] to handle her affairs."
In early April 2016, pursuant to the terms of the 2015 trust providing that "[a]ny amendment or revocation must be delivered to my Trustee in writing," the testatrix sent Boyles the revocation documents, a signed, notarized letter stating "I am revoking all the trust documents signed October 9, 2015" (with the signatures of two witnesses), and a document entitled "Replacement of Trustee," informing Boyles and Cooney that they were being replaced as "trustees of my trust," with Appellee Ivan Jimenez appointed as trustee. By separate letter, the testatrix also informed Appellants that Jimenez was given power of attorney.
Boyles responded to this correspondence, acknowledging receipt and requesting that the testatrix "contact our office to clarify the status of our representation going forward." At about the same time that Boyles was referencing "our representation," he was shuttering his legal practice due to his suspension from the practice of law, effective April 23, 2016. At no time did Boyles inform the testatrix of his suspension or that he was not permitted to accept any new business as of March 26, 2016.
In March 2017, the testatrix executed a new will ("the 2017 will") and a new trust ("the 2017 trust"). The 2017 will expressly revoked all former wills and codicils and named Ivan Jimenez as personal representative. Similarly, the 2017 trust expressly revoked all prior living trusts and named Ivan Jimenez as trustee. Appellants have challenged the validity of both 2017 documents, claiming that Jimenez applied undue influence over a mentally incompetent testatrix.
Under the 2015 will, there are two principal beneficiaries: Appellee Carol Dybdal, the testatrix's niece, who would receive nearly ninety-two percent of the estate, and her brother, who would receive nearly eight percent. A non-relative would receive $25, 000. Under the 2017 will, five of the testatrix's caregivers would split $290, 000, and Dybdal would receive ninety-eight percent of the remaining assets, with her brother's share reduced to two percent. Both Dybdal and her brother support administration of the 2017 will, even though it distributes an additional $265, 000 to non-relatives and diminishes the testatrix's nephew's share.
The testatrix died in August 2017. The following month, Boyles filed a petition for administration requesting the trial court to admit the 2015 will and appoint him as personal representative. The trial court subsequently issued letters of administration and appointed Boyles as personal representative. Boyles never contacted the beneficiaries, and began mailing letters to financial institutions, representing himself as the trustee. At all times after April 23, 2016, Boyles has been suspended from the practice of law.
Appellees Jimenez and Dybdal immediately filed an objection to Boyles' appointment, and they filed a petition for administration of the 2017 will and sought appointment of Jimenez as personal representative. Additionally, Appellees filed a petition to remove Boyles as trustee, referencing the revocation of the 2015 trust.
Appellants challenged the validity of the 2017 will and 2017 trust, claiming that both instruments were procured by undue influence over the testatrix. During the ensuing will contest, Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing for the removal of Boyles on the grounds that even if the 2015 will was operative, he was not qualified to serve as personal representative based on his lack of moral character. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment on this ground, removed Boyles as personal representative, and further made a finding that the testatrix had revoked the 2015 trust.
Following Boyles' removal, Cooney filed a petition for administration of the 2015 will and motion to substitute herself as the successor party to challenge the validity of the 2017 will. At a hearing on these issues, Cooney argued that a ruling as to her petition for administration would be premature pending a resolution of the will contest. The trial court denied Cooney's petition, finding that she should not be appointed as the successor personal representative. The order also denied Cooney's motion to be substituted as the successor party in the challenge of the 2017 will and 2017 trust, determining that her involvement in the matter would prolong litigation and administration of the estate. In the same order, the trial court appointed an administrator ad litem to substitute as the successor party in the ongoing will contest and ordered the administrator ad-litem to investigate and report as to the viability of going forward with the will contest.
The trial court's orders and subsequent denials of motions for rehearing are the subject of appeals that have been consolidated for review and disposition.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment and finding that the testatrix had revoked the 2015 trust because genuine issues of material fact remained.
The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Lindsey, 50 So.3d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000).[1] When reviewing a ruling on summary judgment, the appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the moving party has shown conclusively the complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Gorham v. Zachry Indus., Inc., 105 So.3d 629, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
In their motion for summary judgment, Appellees declared "[i]t is undisputed that [the testatrix] executed documents revoking Mr. BOYLES as her Trustee and Power of Attorney." Indeed, Appellants do not dispute the 2015 trust's terms expressly and unambiguously provided the testatrix with the absolute right to revoke the trust at any time, so long as the revocation was delivered to the trustee in writing. Boyles, however, questioned whether the revocation letter was properly delivered, and he also maintained disputed issues of material fact existed as to the testatrix's capacity and intent and whether she was unduly influenced to revoke the 2015 trust a mere two days after executing it.
Notwithstanding Boyles' arguments, competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's summary judgment regarding the 2015 trust's revocation. Witnesses saw the testatrix signing the revocation letter and removal documents in October 2015 and April 2016, respectively. Without dispute Boyles had notice and receipt of the written revocation, as reflected in his sending a response to the testatrix upon receiving notice of "Replacement of Trustee," stating "it would be greatly appreciated if you would contact our office to clarify the status of our representation going forward." Neither the 2015 trust nor the law required the testatrix to respond to Boyles' entreaty.
To the extent Boyles contends the 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial