## Facts

- Marie M. Holzmann’s will left Jo Ellen Phillips, described as a “beloved friend,” $25,000 “for the care and shelter” of Holzmann’s two dogs, Riley and Shaun.
- Shortly after Holzmann’s death, Riley and Shaun were euthanized for health reasons.
- Holzmann’s parents, as residuary beneficiaries of the estate, petitioned to have the $25,000 returned to the estate rather than kept by Phillips.
- Phillips resisted the petition and sought to keep the $25,000, arguing the bequest was an outright gift to her.
- The trial court construed the bequest as an honorary trust for the noncharitable purpose of caring for the dogs.
- The trial court found the honorary trust failed when the dogs were put to sleep and held the funds were then subject to a resulting trust for the benefit of the estate’s residuary beneficiaries.
- The trial court ordered Phillips to return the $25,000 to the estate, and Phillips appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s $25,000 bequest to Phillips “for the care and shelter” of Holzmann’s two dogs created an honorary (noncharitable purpose) trust rather than an outright gift to Phillips.
2. Whether, once the dogs were euthanized and the stated purpose could no longer be carried out, the funds had to be returned to the estate for the residuary beneficiaries under a resulting trust.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the trial court’s order requiring Phillips to return the $25,000 to the estate.
- The court agreed that the will’s wording showed the money was set aside for the care and shelter of Riley and Shaun, not for Phillips’s unrestricted use.
- Because the bequest was for a specific noncharitable purpose and the dogs were not legal beneficiaries who could enforce a private trust, the arrangement was properly treated as an honorary trust.
- When the dogs were put to sleep shortly after the testator’s death, the purpose of the honorary trust became impossible and the trust failed.
- Upon failure, the court agreed the funds were held on a resulting trust for the estate’s residuary beneficiaries, requiring Phillips to return the $25,000.

## Legal Principles

- In construing a will, the controlling guide is the testator’s intent as expressed in the will.
- A transfer for a specific noncharitable purpose without an enforceable beneficiary may be treated as an honorary trust: the recipient has authority to apply the property to the stated purpose but is not subject to the same enforcement structure as an ordinary private trust.
- If an honorary trust’s stated purpose becomes impossible or fails, and the will does not direct another disposition, the property is held on a resulting trust for the settlor’s estate or those entitled to the residue.
- Purpose language such as “for the care and shelter” can show the testator did not intend an unrestricted personal gift, but a limited-purpose arrangement tied to the continued existence of the stated subject (here, the dogs).

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that Holzmann’s $25,000 bequest to Phillips “for the care and shelter” of Riley and Shaun was an honorary trust rather than an outright gift, and because the dogs were euthanized soon after Holzmann’s death, the trust’s purpose failed and the money had to be returned to the estate under a resulting trust for the residuary beneficiaries.


Phillips v. Estate of Holzmann, 740 So.2d 1 (1998)