## Facts

- Zaven Minassian created a revocable trust, later restated in 2008, which became irrevocable at his death in 2010.
- The trust’s primary purpose was to provide for Zaven and, if she survived him, his wife Paula Minassian; Paula became trustee after Zaven’s death.
- Because federal estate tax was not in effect at Zaven’s death, only a “Family Trust” was created (not a separate “Marital Trust”).
- The Family Trust authorized the trustee, in sole and absolute discretion, to distribute income and principal to Paula for her health, education, and maintenance, with instructions that preserving principal was less important than providing for her.
- The trust stated the Family Trust would terminate at Paula’s death and then referenced dividing what remained into “shares” for Zaven’s children, Rebecca Rachins and Rick Minassian.
- The children sued Paula for breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and surcharge, alleging improper administration.
- Paula disputed the children’s standing, arguing they were not current beneficiaries during her lifetime because new trusts for the children would arise only after Paula’s death.
- During the litigation, Paula appointed a trust protector pursuant to the trust’s terms.
- The trust protector amended the trust to clarify that (1) the Family Trust terminates at Paula’s death and (2) new trusts for the children are created at that time.
- The children filed a supplemental complaint challenging the amendments as invalid; the trial court ruled the trust was unambiguous and the protector lacked authority to amend.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust instrument was ambiguous regarding disposition at Paula’s death, thereby permitting use of the trust protector’s amendment power.
2. Whether a settlor may authorize a trust protector to modify a trust to resolve ambiguities and effectuate intent, consistent with the Florida Trust Code and common law.
3. Whether the trust protector’s amendments exceeded the scope of authority (including the requirement that changes further the settlor’s probable wishes and benefit beneficiaries as a group).

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order invalidating the trust protector’s amendments and remanded.
- The court held the trust’s provisions concerning termination and post-termination disposition were ambiguous.
- The court held the settlor validly conferred authority on a trust protector to amend the trust to resolve ambiguities and carry out intent.
- The court concluded Florida law permits such settlor-granted modification authority, and the protector’s amendment was not invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Ambiguity in a trust instrument may trigger amendment authority granted by the settlor to a trust protector to clarify drafting and effectuate intent.
- Florida Statutes § 736.0808(3) permits trust terms to confer on a third person power to direct modification or termination of a trust.
- Common-law limits on delegation of trustee discretion do not bar a modification power conferred by the settlor on a third party; the authority derives from the trust terms, not from trustee delegation.
- Florida’s judicial/statutory trust-modification provisions are not the exclusive means of modification when the trust instrument itself authorizes modification through a directed-power mechanism.
- A trust protector’s amendment is evaluated against the scope and standards stated in the instrument, including consistency with the settlor’s expressed priorities.

## Conclusion

The court held that ambiguous provisions about what occurs at the spouse’s death allowed the settlor-authorized trust protector to clarify the trust, and Florida law recognizes such directed modification authority; therefore, the trial court erred in declaring the protector’s amendments invalid.


Minassian v. Rachins, 152 So. 3d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)