## Facts

- Mitchell Anton and Tracy Anton were siblings serving as co-trustees of a trust.
- A different co-trustee (Mitchell’s brother, a lawyer) stole funds from the trust over time.
- The theft was carried out in part by having Mitchell sign trust-account checks in blank.
- Mitchell did not review bank statements, cancelled checks, or bills allegedly paid for the trust, allowing the scheme to continue.
- The dishonest co-trustee was criminally prosecuted and ordered to make monthly restitution payments to the trust.
- In a civil action, the trial court held Mitchell liable for the trust’s loss and entered judgment against him.

## Issues

1. Whether an inattentive co-trustee who signs blank checks and fails to monitor trust finances breaches fiduciary duties and is liable for losses caused by another co-trustee’s theft.
2. Whether a civil judgment against the inattentive co-trustee must be reversed or reduced because criminal restitution payments by the wrongdoer could cause double recovery.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment holding Mitchell liable for the trust’s loss.
- The court held that Mitchell breached his duties by failing to participate diligently in trust administration and by effectively delegating administration to the dishonest co-trustee.
- The court rejected the argument that liability required tracing all losses to the blank checks; Mitchell’s broader nonparticipation enabled the defalcation.
- The court held that potential double recovery due to criminal restitution was not a basis to reverse the civil judgment; if duplication occurs after Mitchell pays, subrogation is the remedy.

## Legal Principles

- A trustee must administer the trust diligently for the beneficiary’s benefit.
- Where there are multiple trustees, each must participate fully in trust administration and maintain vigilant oversight.
- A trustee breaches fiduciary duty by delegating trust administration to a co-trustee and failing to supervise, even if the delegating trustee is merely inattentive rather than dishonest.
- Reliance on a co-trustee’s professional status (including being a lawyer) does not excuse a trustee’s personal responsibility for oversight.
- If a liable party pays a debt attributable to another and equity requires it, subrogation may entitle the payer to amounts later paid by the primary wrongdoer, preventing double recovery.

## Conclusion

An inattentive co-trustee may be held liable for trust losses caused by another trustee’s theft when the inattentiveness reflects a failure to participate and supervise as required by fiduciary duty, and any risk of double recovery from criminal restitution is addressed through subrogation rather than reversal of a civil judgment.


Anton v. Anton, 815 So. 2d 768 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2002)