Cited

As of: August 26, 2018 5:50 AM Z

Seeley v. Cochrane
Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
December 4, 1991, Filed
CASE NO. 90-03450

Reporter
590 So. 2d 38 *; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12118 **; 16 Fla. L. Weekly D 3014
W. PARKER SEELEY, JR., Trustee of the
Revocable Living Trust of Isabelle M. Cochrane,
Appellant, v. JUNE N. COCHRANE, Appellee.
Subsequent History: [**1] Released
Publication December 20, 1991.
Prior History: Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Collier County; Cynthia A. Ellis, Acting Circuit
Judge.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Core Terms
daughter, life estate, couple, trial court,
circumstances, promised, constructive trust, oral
agreement, fiduciary, trustee's, eviction, settlor,
induce
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Appellant, the trustee of a revocable trust, sought
review from an order of Circuit Court for Collier
County (Florida), which imposed a life interest in
favor of appellee daughter in law on a home owned
by the trust. Appellant asserted that appellee did not
have a right to a life estate in the property at issue.
Overview
Appellee, the daughter in law of the settlor of a
trust, moved from out of state to be with her mother
in law, the trust settlor. Appellee had lived in a
home provided by the trustee of the mother in law's
trust and, after appellee's husband died, the trust
for elected to remove her from the property. The lower
court imposed a life interest in favor of the appellee
on the home owned by the trust. Appellant sought
review. On appeal, the court affirmed the order of
the trial court granting a life estate in favor of
appellee. The court found that appellee fully
performed her part of an oral agreement to be with
the settlor and actually moved from out of state to
honor that agreement. The court found that, under
the circumstances, appellee was entitled to a life
estate in the home as was promised by the trustee.
Outcome
The court affirmed the order of the trial court
granting a life estate in favor of appellee because
appellee fully performed her part of an oral
agreement to be with the settlor. The court
determined that appellee was entitled to a life estate
in the home as that was promised by the trustee.
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Constructive
Trusts

KYLE YOUNG
 590 So. 2d 38, *38; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12118, **1
Estate, Gift & Trust
Law > Trusts > Constructive Trusts
Real Property Law > Trusts > Constructive
Trusts
Civil Procedure > ... > Standards of
Review > Substantial Evidence > General
Overview
HN1[ ] Remedies, Constructive Trusts
Where a trial court's decision is supported by an
alternative theory it must be affirmed.
Counsel: William D. Keith and Peter J. Tincher of
Monaco, Cardillo & Keith, P.A., Naples, for
Appellant.Donald T. Franke of Donald T. Franke,
P.A., Naples, for Appellee.
Judges: THREADGILL, FRANK, HALL
Opinion by: THREADGILL
Opinion
[*39] THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant, the trustee of a revocable trust,
appeals from an order of the trial court which
imposed a life interest in favor of the appellee on a
home owned by the trust. We affirm.
Evidence at the nonjury trial established that the
appellee and her husband moved from South
Carolina to Naples, Florida to be near the husband's
elderly mother, the trust's settlor. Conflicting
evidence was presented concerning the
circumstances that prompted the move. The
testimony supporting the trial court's order,
however, showed that the trustee traveled to South
Carolina and told the couple that the settlor wanted
them to move to Florida to be nearer to her. To
induce them to move, the trustee offered to buy a
home in which the couple would have a joint life
estate. Accepting the arrangement, the couple
KYLE YOUNG Page 2 of 3
removed [**2] themselves from their interests in
South Carolina and moved into the home provided
by the trust. Once the couple was in the home, the
trustee's conduct toward them was consistent with
their having a life estate. Four years later, however,
after the husband had died, the trustee notified the
appellee that the trust had determined to sell the
home. The appellee refused to move out asserting
her right to a life estate. The trustee instituted
eviction proceedings which gave rise to the subject
of this appeal.
Based upon evidence that the trustee acted as the
couple's advisor in this move as well as in their
personal financial affairs, the trial court concluded
the trustee had established a fiduciary relationship
with the couple. The trial court found that the
trustee breached his fiduciary duty by not providing
for the life estate as promised. The trial court
imposed a constructive trust to protect the
beneficial interest of the appellee for the remainder
of her life. The appellant contends that the elements
necessary to impose a constructive trust have not
been established by the evidence. We need not
address that issue, however, as HN1[ ] the trial
court's decision is supported by an
alternative [**3] theory and therefore must be
affirmed. See U.S. Home Corp. v. Suncoast
Utilities, Inc., 454 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
We affirm on the authority of Cottages, Miami
Beach, Inc. v. Wegman, 57 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1951),
reh'g denied, 59 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1952). In
Cottages, a father wrote to his daughter, requesting
her to leave her home in New York City and move
to Miami Beach for the purpose of assisting him in
the operation of his business in connection with
certain real estate he was in the process of
purchasing. As an inducement to accept his offer,
the father promised his daughter he would "vest in
her a one-half interest in and to the said described
property." Id. at 440. The daughter accepted the
offer, gave up her home in New York City, and
moved with her child to Miami Beach.
The father later died and the daughter filed a suit
 590 So. 2d 38, *39; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12118, **3

against the executrix of his estate seeking specific

performance of the alleged agreement. The trial
court entered judgment for the daughter and the
supreme court affirmed.

The supreme court found that the agreement

between the father and daughter amounted to an
oral promise [**4] to convey an interest in real
property. The court held that the daughter's
performance of her part of the agreement, together
with her possession of the property to which the
agreement related, was sufficient to take the oral
agreement out of the statute of [*40] frauds. The
supreme court further considered the prejudice
which would result to the daughter if the oral
contract were not performed. The court noted that
by virtue of the agreement proposed by the father,
the daughter was compelled to disrupt her pattern
of life, to sever old ties, and to establish new ones
in a distant city. Id. at 442.

The factual circumstances in this case are very

similar to those in Cottages and we feel that the
equities are as compelling. We conclude, as did the
court in Cottages, that the appellee fully performed
her part of the oral agreement, moved from South
Carolina, and took possession of the home in
Naples so her husband could be close to his mother.
Under these circumstances, we find that she was
entitled to a life estate in the home as was promised
by the trustee.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court

granting a life estate in favor of the appellee.
Implicit [**5] in the trial judge's order was a denial
of the trustee's complaint for eviction. Therefore,
we affirm the order in all respects.

Affirmed.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL, J., Concur.

End of Document

KYLE YOUNG Page 3 of 3