Watson v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1962
• Docket Number: No. 2765,2765
• Citation: 146 So.2d 383
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Carol C. WATSON, Appellant, v. ST. PETERSBURG BANK & TRUST COMPANY, and James T. Earle, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of John A. Watson, Deceased, Appellees.

Page 383

146 So.2d 383

Carol C. WATSON, Appellant, v. ST. PETERSBURG BANK & TRUST COMPANY, and James T. Earle, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of John A. Watson, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 2765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 17, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1962.

Fred B. Sieber, of Harris, Barrett, McGlothlin, Dew & Sieber, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Gordon D. McCutcheon, Jr., St. Petersburg, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

The appellant, as plaintiff, filed her complaint against the defendants-appellees, alleging that the plaintiff and John A. Watson, her husband, executed an instrument, entitled 'Trust Agreement,' with the St. Petersburg Bank and Trust Co. and conveyed certain real and personal property to said bank as trustee, under the terms of said agreement; that subsequently, Mr. Watson died, and that the trust was a dry and passive trust which was executed by the Statute of Uses. The plaintiff prayed for judgment compelling the bank to make proper transfer of all of the property and for such other and further relief as the court might deem proper. The bank answered, denying the trust was passive, but joining in the plaintiff's prayer for relief insofar as that prayer requested the court to interpret the alleged Trust Agreement. After appointment, the Administrator Ad Litem answered, denying that the trust was a dry, passive trust which was executed by the Statutes of Uses.

The court in its final decree found, in effect, that the Trustor, John A. Watson, intended a survival of the reserve power to revoke and terminate; that the Trust Agreement was deficient in that it failed to disclose a genuine trust purpose; that the powers retained by the settlor in their cumulative effect amount to ownership of the trust estate and, therefore, the purported Trust Agreement and the conveyances made pursuant thereto were a nullity.

The appellant contends that the decree of the court was outside of the issues framed by the parties and that the Agreement created a valid, but dry, passive and naked trust, which was executed by operation of law, thus vesting the legal title to the trust assets in the appellant. The appellees contend that the issues were not so limited but that a valid trust was created and it continued as an active trust. Thus, neither of the parties support the finding of the court that a valid trust was never created.

The issues framed by the pleading did not confine the court to the question as to whether or not the purported trust was active or passive and, therefore, the court could, as it did, consider the issue as to whether or not the trust was, in fact, created.

The Trust Agreement contains many statements which may be variously classified as pertinent, inconsistent, vague or uncertain. Some of these are paraphrased as follows:

'John A. Watson is designated the 'Trustor,' which designation shall include all successors in interest to the Trustor.

'Carol C. Watson is designated the Beneficiary, which designation includes all successors to the Beneficiary.

The Agreement refers to the fact that the Trustor and the Beneficiary are about to convey title to certain property to the Trustee in trust for the uses and purposes specified in the Agreement.

'The property will be held by the Trustee until the whole of the trust estate is conveyed free of the trust.

The Trustor reserves the right at any time to revoke the trust in whole or in part.

The Trustee was required, at any time, to convey the trust property to such persons as the Trustor might designate.

The Trustee was specifically not required to procure or maintain insurance, pay any liens or taxes or other charges against the property, nor to collect or disburse rents or perfect title, or in any respect care for the trust estate against any legal or equitable attack. All responsibility toward the property and the trust was declared specifically as vesting solely and exclusively on the Beneficiary and the other beneficiaries of the trust and not on the Trustee.

'The sole and exclusive liability of the Trustee was specifically referred to as that liability to convey on the demand of the Trustor.

'The Beneficiary was given the right, and it was directed that she be allowed, to continue in full, free and undisturbed possession of the property, without any rental or accounting to the Trustee or any of the other beneficiaries under this trust; but this provision was then limited with the statement that the Beneficiary shall not incur any liabilities in connection with the property for which the Trustee may in any event become legally chargeable.

One of the specifically recited objects and purposes of the trust was to hold title to the trust property and to protect and conserve it until its sale or other disposition or liquidation. Then the Agreement specifically states that the Trustee shall not manage or operate the trust...