## Facts

- Adrain R. Fisher and Grace M. Fisher created an instrument in 1963 establishing two trusts: Trust A (funded with Mr. Fisher’s property) and Trust B (funded with Mrs. Fisher’s property).
- In 1970, the Fishers amended the instrument, replacing simple termination-and-distribution language with more complex provisions creating continuing beneficial interests for their grandsons, Robert Ludwig and John Ludwig, and then for descendants.
- The amendment included a “savings clause” requiring termination and distribution at the time required by the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) if the trust would otherwise violate RAP.
- Mr. Fisher died in 1976, rendering Trust A irrevocable.
- Robert died in 1993 without descendants.
- The trustee, AmSouth Bank of Florida, filed a petition for instructions regarding proper construction and administration after Robert’s death.
- Robert’s estate argued Trust A violated RAP, making it void at Mr. Fisher’s death and requiring outright distribution to Robert and John (thereby giving the estate a share).
- John and the trustee argued the savings clause and use of a valid “life in being” prevented any perpetuities violation, so the trust survived and the estate took nothing.

## Issues

1. Whether Trust A violated the Rule Against Perpetuities such that the corpus should have vested and been distributed at or near Mr. Fisher’s death, giving Robert’s estate an interest.
2. Whether the trust’s savings clause and identification of a valid measuring life prevented a perpetuities violation, leaving Robert’s estate with no claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order insofar as it extinguished Robert’s estate’s claims.
- The court held RAP did not require termination or distribution of the trusts before Robert’s death and that the trusts survived Robert.
- The court declined to review other trust-construction rulings affecting other parties because additional issues remained pending in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A trust containing an effective RAP savings clause will not be declared void for perpetuities purposes when the clause ensures termination and distribution within the permissible period.
- RAP analysis may be satisfied by reference to an identifiable “life in being” that measures the vesting period for contingent interests.
- An order that finally eliminates a particular party’s claim to trust assets is appealable as to that party even if other trust issues remain unresolved.

## Conclusion

The court upheld continued validity of the trusts after Robert’s death, concluding that RAP did not force earlier vesting or distribution and that Robert’s estate had no interest in either trust’s corpus.


Ludwig v. AmSouth Bank of Fla., 686 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1997)