Glidden v. Getulius
| Citation | 96 Fla. 834,120 So. 1 |
| Parties | GLIDDEN v. GETULIUS. |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1929 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
On petition for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 119 So. 140.
Syllabus by the Court
Administrator unauthorized to invest funds of estate must hold collections or deposits in cash or subject to check. Where administrator as such is not authorized to invest funds of decedent's estate, collections or deposits by administrator as such are to be held in cash or subject to check.
Where trust company, administrator, fails after commingling funds beneficiaries may have preference over general depositors in cash on hand and securities (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, §§ 6126 6127). Where trust company acts as administrator under Rev Gen. St. 1920, §§ 4185, 4186 (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, §§ 6126 6127), and fails after commingling its general funds with funds received as administrator, beneficiaries may have preference over general depositors as to cash on hand and as to securities remaining after claims of cestuis qui trustent having priority as to securities lawfully acquired with funds shall have been satisfied and which securities have been acquired by administrator after commingling of funds.
Where trust company as fiduciary authorized to invest in securities commingles funds and invests them in lawful securities, cestuis que trustent may have preference in securities. When trust company lawfully acts as fiduciary with power to invest trust funds in particular securities, and trust company commingles trust funds with its general funds and then invests such commingled funds in securities that are lawful investments for trust funds, upon a general failure of fiduciary trust company, cestuis que trustent may have preference in securities found among fiduciary company's assets that are authorized investments of fiduciary trust fund, in absence of showing that trust fund was not invested in such securities.
As stated by Mr. Justice BUFORD in the main opinion, there is a distinction to be drawn between the status of trust funds which a trust company may under the statute invest in certain securities and trusts funds which the trust company had no lawful authority to invest in securities; and, as also stated, where trust funds are commingled with other funds of the trustee, and disbursements are made from the common fund, or the common fund is wasted, it will be presumed that the part disbursed or wasted was that of the trustee and not the property of the cestui qui trust, and the presumption is that those administering a trust fund have properly discharged their duty, and the general duties of an administrator are to collect the effects of the deceased, to pay the claims against his estate, and to distribute the residue to those entitled thereto.
The statute authorizes trust companies to qualify and act as administrator or other fiduciary or trustee, requires such companies to keep trust funds separate from their general funds, provides that trust funds shall not be liable for the debts or obligations of the trust companies, and designates the classes of securities in which trust funds may be invested where investment of such trust funds is duly authorized. See sections 4185, 4186, Revised General Statutes 1920; sections 6126, 6127, Compiled General Laws 1927.
It is only when a fiduciary trust company fails or is financially unable to meet all of its trust and general obligations that questions of commingling funds, priorities in payments, and presumptions as to the use or dissipation of the general or trust funds of a fiduciary trust company arise for judicial or administrative decision.
Where a trust company that is authorized to act as trustee or other fiduciary commingles its trust funds with its general funds and, after making disbursements from the commingled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Thornton
... ... subjected to claims against the trustee? In support of the ... question, as propounded by counsel for appellants, is cited ... Glidden, Adm'r v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834, 119 So ... 140, 120 So. 1; Myers, Receiver, v. Matusek, 98 Fla ... 1126, 125 So. 360; First State Trust & ... ...
-
Edwards v. Lewis
... ... the funds of the bank. Federal Reserve Bank v. Peters, and ... other citations, supra. See, also, Glidden v ... Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834, 119 So. 140, 120 So. 1 ... The ... allegations of the bill that are well pleaded being admitted ... by ... ...
-
Myers v. Matusek
...set forth the above summary of the varying judicial opinion thereon, adding thereto the substance of our own former decision in the Glidden v. Gutelius case, which indicates tendency of this court in the direction of what has been referred to as the majority doctrine. Further treatments of ......
-
Flack v. Hood
...( First & Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Corp. Comm., 201 N.C. 381, 160 S.E. 360; Corp. Comm. v. Trust Co., 193 N.C. 696, 138 S.E. 22; Glidden v. Gutelius, supra); that, when an agent, bailee, or trustee, commingles funds with his own, and dissipates a portion of the commingled fund, he will be pre......