## Facts

- LeRoy DeRoche owned a mobile home located on a lot owned by Venice Bay Trailer Park, Inc. (Venice Bay).
- DeRoche also owned 53.5 of the 80 outstanding shares of Venice Bay.
- DeRoche executed a will that bequeathed 20 shares of Venice Bay to Marie DeRoche and the remainder of his shares equally to two brothers, including Leonard DeRoche.
- Paragraph THIRD of the will stated it was DeRoche’s “desire” that Violet Mitchell, who was then living in the mobile home, be allowed to continue to live “rent free, on the lot and in the mobile home” for the rest of her life.
- The will also “request[ed]” that the three stock beneficiaries “do their utmost” to carry out that desire.
- The will further stated that if the beneficiaries sold Venice Bay, DeRoche “hope[d]” provisions would be made to ensure Mitchell had a “life interest in the lot and mobile home.”
- After DeRoche died, Marie and Leonard sought to administer the estate; Mitchell obtained a probate order construing the will as creating a precatory trust giving her a life estate in the mobile home and lot.
- Marie and Leonard, as joint personal representatives, appealed the probate court’s construction of the will.

## Issues

1. Did the will’s expressions of “desire,” “request,” and “hope” regarding Mitchell’s rent-free occupancy show an intent to impose a binding duty on the beneficiaries, thereby creating an enforceable precatory trust (or life estate) in her favor?

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the probate court’s order.
- The will’s language was precatory only and did not create a trust obligation or a legal life estate for Mitchell.
- Because the language and circumstances did not show an intent to impose a legal duty on the stock beneficiaries, the beneficiaries remained free to comply with DeRoche’s wish or not.

## Legal Principles

- Precatory language in a will (words such as “desire,” “request,” or “hope”) may create a trust only when the will’s language and surrounding circumstances show the testator intended to impose a legal duty on the recipient of the property.
- A trust is not created when the testator merely states a wish and leaves the beneficiary free to carry out that wish or decline to do so.
- Modern Florida law does not treat precatory words as trust-creating by default; intent to impose an enforceable obligation must be shown from the instrument and context.
- Authorities cited for the intent-to-impose-duty requirement include *Magnant v. Peacock*, the Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 25, and leading treatises on trusts and wills.

## Conclusion

In *DeRoche v. Mitchell (In re Estate of DeRoche)*, the Florida Second District held that a will provision stating the testator’s “desire,” “request,” and “hope” that Violet Mitchell be allowed to live rent-free in a mobile home and on a corporation-owned lot for life did not impose a binding duty on the beneficiaries and therefore did not create a precatory trust or life estate; the probate order construing the will to grant Mitchell such an interest was reversed.


DeRoche v. Mitchell (In re Estate of DeRoche), 330 So. 2d 860 (1976)