New retirement legislation was signed into effect just before Christmas, on December 20, 2019.  Non-spousal beneficiaries of inherited IRAs are now required to withdraw all of their money within 10 years.  Previously, non-spousal beneficiaries could opt to take only required minimum distributions over their life expectancy, potentially allowing the funds to grow tax-free for years.  This is now not possible, due to the elimination of these “stretched” distributions.

Beginning in 2020, under the new Secure Act, non-spousal beneficiaries of IRAs are required to take the entirety of the funds within 10 years after the death of the initial account owner, and then close their account, regardless of tax consequences. …

The Third District Court of Appeal’s August 21, 2019 opinion in Reno v. Hurchalla, applied the cy pres doctrine from SPCA Wildlife Care Center v. Abraham, 75 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), reminding us again that a decedent’s intentions under this doctrine can be substituted by another plan which is believed to be as close to the original plan as possible if the original plan becomes impossible or impracticable of fulfillment….

This interesting Second District Court of Appeal opinion kept with the public policy of having a legal obligation to support a child, supporting the Florida Supreme Court’s longstanding decision of Bacardi v. White, 463 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1985).

In Alexander, the father was the sole beneficiary of a special needs trust, established with funds from the settlement of a product liability action brought on the father’s behalf after he was catastrophically injured in a car accident as a minor….

This was a somewhat lengthy opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal, including the dissenting opinion.  The trial court’s decision to, among other things, enjoin a party in a guardianship matter to attach (or even reference) the medical records of the alleged incapacitated person and also enjoin the parties (other than the alleged incapacitated person) from having ex parte communications with the court-appointed examining committee, was subject to review.

After the death of the alleged incapacitated person’s wife, Comprehensive Personal Care Services commenced a trust matter against the alleged incapacitated person (Milton), and his son Mark, regarding an irrevocable trust executed in 2011 by Milton and his late spouse. …

This recent Fourth District Court of Appeal opinion reminds us of the fundamental concepts of contract law as they relate to a decedent’s estate.

In Wilson, Marilyn Wilson and her late spouse, Paul Wilson, were married in 2011.  Prior to their marriage, they entered into a prenuptial agreement, wherein the couple waived their right to an elective share.  The prenuptial agreement did allow the couple to make testamentary gifts to each other, by way of will or codicil, and without invalidating the prenuptial agreement. …

Florida courts use the extraordinary remedy of imposing temporary injunctions only sparingly, and grant temporary injunctions only when the allegations proof of the facts support the entry of this relief.  

“A party seeking a temporary injunction must prove: (1) that it will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) that it has no adequate remedy at law; (3) that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.” Jouvence Ctr.…

The traditional standards for imposing injunctions or freeze orders apply in trust litigation matters.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in McKeegan v. Ernst, 84 So.3d 1229 (Fla. 4thDCA 2012) was one of the first decisions along these lines.  In McKeegan, Ms. McKeegan challenged the entry of an ex parte temporary injunction order imposed on a trust bank account.  Ms. McKeegan argued that the temporary injunction order was facially deficient because it did not include sufficient factual findings to support each prong of the four-part injunction test….

The Second District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Ebeling v. Ebeling (June 7, 2019) reiterated this concept of trust construction.

In Ebeling, the trial court construed the terms of a trust to determine the entitlement to the trust’s assets.  The trial court’s decision on distribution to contingent beneficiaries named in the trust rater than the decedent’s estate was reversed.

The trust was governed by Illinois law but that did not make any difference. …

In the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Mullins v. Mullins, June 7, 2019, the court reversed the probate court’s decision, holding that a will established the interest in the real property and not a homestead order from the probate court.

The will that was admitted to probate in this case devised the decedent’s property to her three children, giving a life estate to her two sons.  Subsequently the probate court entered a homestead order, reflecting that the property was devised in equal shares to the decedent’s three children, but the order did not mention the life estate interest of the two sons. …

The question of whether ashes of a deceased person can be divided comes up often among family members, distraught over the loss of a loved one, and particularly in modern day family situations with divorced parents and blended families.

This question was answered in 2014 in the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Wilson v. Wilson, 138 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 4thDCA 2014).  Ashes are not property as defined by Fla. Stat. 731.201(32) and thus not subject to partitioning or division….