The Role of a Trust Protector in a Florida Revocable Trust

A trust typically involves three parties: a grantor, a trustee, and a beneficiary. In the case of a Florida revocable living trust, the same person often fills all three of those roles initially. That is, a person acting as their own grantor funds a trust where they serve as trustee and administer the trust assets for their benefit during their lifetime. Only upon the grantor’s death (or incapacity) does a successor trustee take over and administer the trust property as instructed by the grantor.

There is, however, a potential fourth party in some revocable trusts: A trust protector. A trust protector is a disinterested third party appointed by the grantor to represent the grantor’s interests in making certain decisions that the grantor cannot make, again due to death or incapacity. Typically, this includes the power to remove the successor trustee. But a trust can also grant a trust protector broad authority to amend or revise the terms of the trust in order ensure the trustee’s actions more closely conform to the grantor’s intentions.

Trust Protector Allowed to Resolve Ambiguity in Trust Language

To be clear, trust protectors are not common in Florida trusts. And when they are used, the trust itself must be carefully drafted to outline the trust protector’s role and responsibilities. Any ambiguity in a trust protector’s authority can lead to litigation, which basically negates the reason people tend to appoint trust protectors in the first place.

A 2025 case from the Florida Third District Court of Appeals, Lieberman v. Sloto, illustrates this point. This case involved a revocable trust established by a grantor to leave assets to his son. Among the trust’s assets was a 40 percent interest in a commercial real estate corporation.

The trust appointed both a successor trustee and a trust protector, who took over the trust upon the settlor’s death in 2019. The trustee subsequently appointed the settlor’s son, who was just 22 years old, to take over as president of the real estate company. But the trust protector believed that someone more experienced should run the business and thus directed the trustee to remove the son from his position as president. The trustee refused.

The trust protector subsequently filed suit in Florida court to compel the trustee to comply with his directive. In response, the trustee argued that the language of the trust required the trust protector to “make a reasonable inquiry into any matter or seek any information that reasonably bears upon” the trust protector’s decision to exercise his authority. The trustee maintained the trust protector failed to do this.

The trust protector’s response was to use his authority to amend the trust to state the use of “should” was not mandatory and that the trust protector need not “make reasonable inquiry to seek additional information that would or would have changed my mind that [the son] is not qualified to be President of a multi-million dollar commercial real estate company.”

To make a long story short, the Third District agreed that the terms of the trust allowed the trust protector to act as he did. The use of “should” was either ambiguous or “unambiguously advisory rather than mandatory.” In either case, the trust protector was allowed to resolve the issue without judicial interpretation.

Contact a Davie Probate & Estate Litigation Lawyer

No matter how carefully drafted a will or trust may be, there is always a risk of litigation when parties disagree as to the precise meaning of a word or phrase. If you are involved in such a dispute and need representation from an experienced Davie probate and estate litigation attorney, contact Valero Law today at 305-607-7011 to schedule a free consultation. We serve clients in Davie, Broward County, Coconut Grove and Miami-Dade County.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14286715378712444630