## Facts

- In 1980, Ruth Freda Ulery executed a revocable inter vivos (“living”) trust and transferred essentially all of her real and personal property into it.
- Ulery named her nephew, Duane H. Robinson, as trustee.
- The 1980 trust directed Robinson to make distributions to Ulery during her lifetime.
- After Ulery’s death, the 1980 trust authorized Robinson, in his sole discretion, to distribute income and principal among Ulery’s children and grandchildren.
- In 1981, Ulery executed a second revocable trust that was identical to the 1980 trust except for an added clause stating that, after Ulery’s death, Robinson could distribute trust assets to “others as the Trustee in his discretion may deem appropriate.”
- Robinson obtained the 1981 trust instrument for Ulery at her direction.
- Testimony from witnesses to the 1981 trust, along with testimony from Ulery’s relatives, indicated Ulery’s purpose in revising the trust was to benefit a recently born grandchild.
- After Ulery’s death, her daughters, Thelma Kunce and Ruth Whitaker, sued to void the 1981 trust, alleging Robinson’s undue influence and contending the “others” language was too indefinite to be enforceable.
- The trial court found no undue influence and upheld the 1981 trust as drafted; the daughters appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1981 trust was the product of undue influence by Robinson such that it should be set aside.
2. Whether the post-death clause permitting distributions to “others as the Trustee in his discretion may deem appropriate” was unenforceable for indefiniteness, and, if so, whether that defect required invalidating the entire trust or could be treated as separable from otherwise valid provisions.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Robinson did not unduly influence Ulery in executing the 1981 trust.
- The court rejected the attempt to void the entire trust based on the “others” language.
- Applying the rule that a trust with multiple purposes may be enforced “so far as it is good” when any invalid portion is separable and enforcing the remainder does not defeat the settlor’s general intent, the court concluded the trust remained enforceable at least as to the clearly identified family beneficiaries (Ulery’s children and grandchildren).
- The judgment upholding the trust was affirmed, with the understanding that any unenforceable indefinite portion would not defeat the otherwise valid trust plan.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts generally defer to a trial court’s fact findings on undue influence when supported by competent evidence.
- A private trust must have beneficiaries who are sufficiently definite or ascertainable to permit enforcement.
- When a trust contains multiple purposes or provisions, some valid and some invalid, courts will enforce the valid parts if the invalid part is separable and enforcement of the remainder does not contradict the settlor’s general intent.
- Extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine the settlor’s intent where needed to evaluate how a disputed provision fits within the overall trust plan.

## Conclusion

Kunce v. Robinson held that Ulery’s 1981 revocable trust was not procured by undue influence, and that the trust would not fail in its entirety because of the added post-death language authorizing distributions to “others”; the trust was enforceable at least to the extent of its valid provisions benefiting Ulery during life and her children and grandchildren after death, with any indefinite portion treated as separable rather than fatal to the trust.


Kunce v. Robinson, 469 So. 2d 874 (1985)