Opinion
Nos. 3D99-980 3D99-710.
Opinion filed April 19, 2000.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Sidney Shapiro, Judge, L.T. NO. 98-3613.
English, McCaughan O'Bryan and Gary L. Rudolf and Ann M. Burke, for appellants.
Wallace, Bauman, Legon, Fodiman Shannon and Michael Shannon; Harold V. Hickey, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GREEN and FLETCHER, JJ.
The trustees of an inter vivos trust established by Joseph Brenner, who is now deceased, seek review of orders which (a) required the trust to bear the entire burden of the estate taxes due upon Brenner's death and (b) provided that the trust pay the expenses of the guardianship established for Mr. Brenner when he became incompetent prior to his death. We agree with the appellants' position in each respect and reverse both rulings on the merits.
While we also completely agree with the trust that it was deprived below of its due process right to be joined as a party and to be given fair notice of the entry of orders against it, our conclusion that both rulings were substantially wrong makes it unnecessary to base our reversal on these grounds.
1. The relevant provisions of Brenner's will, which control the issue, see Guidry v. Pinellas Central Bank Trust Co., 310 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); In re Estate of Strohm, 241 So.2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), do not contain the "clear and unequivocal" direction against the apportionment of taxes between the estate and the trust which is required by section 733.817(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), to avoid the effect of the statutory rule that apportionment apply in the absence of such a direction. See Yoakley v. Raese, 448 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 456 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1984); Guidry, 310 So.2d at 386; Strohm, 241 So.2d at 167. After remand, therefore, the court will require apportionment of the estate tax burden in accordance with section 733.817.
ARTICLE EIGHTH
Similarly, there is no basis in the statutory law or in the terms of the trust itself which supports the conclusion that the trust rather than the estate must pay the expenses of the guardianship. See Johnson v. Guardianship of Singleton, 743 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Cohen v. Friedland, 450 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See also Midland Nat'l Bank Trust v. Comerica Trust Co., 616 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The orders below which so provide are therefore reversed outright.
ARTICLE VI — PAYMENT OF DEBTS, TAXES AND COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION
After SETTLORS'S death, the TRUSTEE shall pay all or such portion of the following items as the Personal Representative of SETTLOR'S estate may from time to time request:
6.1 Debts which SETTLOR is legally obligated to pay at the time of SETTLOR'S death;
6.2 SETTLOR'S last illness and funeral expenses;
6.3 Miscellaneous taxes and costs of administration of SETTLOR'S estate; and
6.4 Any estate, inheritance, succession, and other death taxes of any nature, together with any interest and penalties thereof, which may be levied or assessed by reason of SETTLOR'S death by the laws of any State or of the United States with respect to property passing under SETTLOR'S Last Will and Testament, property held by the TRUSTEE under this Agreement, or any other property.
6.5 Said debts, expenses, costs and taxes may be paid out of either the principal or income of the Trust Estate.
Reversed.