## Facts

- Margaret J. Megiel had three children: Denise, Sharon, and Robert.
- In 1992, Margaret executed a will leaving the residue of her estate equally to her three children; the will did not specifically devise her Punta Gorda residence.
- In 1997, Margaret created the P.M. Revocable Trust, naming herself as initial trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary, and deeded the Punta Gorda residence to herself as trustee.
- The trust contemplated that, at Margaret’s death, trust assets would pass to successor beneficiaries listed on a separate “Schedule of Beneficial Interests,” but no schedule was prepared or attached.
- The drafting attorney (Denise’s husband) testified Margaret directed him to prepare a schedule naming Denise and Robert as successor beneficiaries and excluding Sharon, but he failed to do so.
- After Margaret’s death, Sharon sought a declaration that the trust was void and that the residence passed under the will.
- Denise, as trustee, argued the missing schedule resulted from a drafting mistake and sought reformation under Fla. Stat. § 736.0415.

## Issues

1. Whether a revocable trust missing an intended beneficiary schedule due to a drafting omission may be reformed under Fla. Stat. § 736.0415 upon clear and convincing proof of settlor intent and mistake.
2. Whether the omission rendered the trust void ab initio for lack of definite beneficiaries or under the doctrine of merger.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final summary judgment entered for Sharon and the other appellees.
- The court held the trust was potentially subject to reformation under Fla. Stat. § 736.0415 to include the omitted Schedule of Beneficial Interests if proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the trust was void ab initio and not reformable.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine, based on the statutory standard and evidence, whether reformation should be granted.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fla. Stat. § 736.0415, a court may reform a trust’s terms, even if unambiguous, to conform to the settlor’s intent when clear and convincing evidence shows the terms and intent were affected by a mistake of fact or law (in expression or inducement).
- The statute is remedial and is construed broadly to permit equitable correction of drafting mistakes, not limited to minor clerical errors.
- Extrinsic evidence, including testimony from the drafting attorney, may be considered to establish settlor intent and the existence of a mistake for reformation purposes.
- A trust is not necessarily void ab initio on summary judgment merely because a contemplated beneficiary schedule was omitted, where evidence supports intended remainder beneficiaries and statutory reformation may cure the defective expression.
- Reformation claims are typically fact-intensive; summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist about intent, mistake, and satisfaction of the clear-and-convincing standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that an omitted remainder-beneficiary schedule in a revocable trust may be corrected through statutory reformation if the settlor’s intent and drafting mistake are proven by clear and convincing evidence, making summary judgment invalid and requiring further proceedings.


Megiel-Rollo v. Megiel, 162 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)