## Facts

- Husband and wife John J. McNeill and Louise M. McNeill created a joint revocable trust in 1989, naming themselves as both grantors and trustees.
- During their lifetimes, trust income and principal were payable to the grantors as requested.
- Upon the death of the last surviving grantor, the trust directed a 50/50 distribution to each of their two children (Patrick J. McNeill and Annmary K. Roberts), with per stirpes distributions to a child’s issue if that child was not living.
- The trust’s amendment clause stated the trust was subject to revocation, change, or amendment “in writing, by the Grantors.”
- The trust also included a general rule of construction providing that, unless context required otherwise, “the singular and plural may be construed interchangeably.”
- Patrick died in 1999, leaving two children (Kimberly A. Sarros and Michael P. McNeill), who became remainder beneficiaries under the original distribution scheme.
- John died in 2002; Roberts became successor trustee with Louise’s consent.
- After John’s death, Louise executed a written amendment changing the distribution so that Roberts would receive all trust assets, removing Patrick’s children as remainder beneficiaries.
- Patrick’s children sued to invalidate the amendment; the trial court granted partial summary judgment, ruling the trust became irrevocable upon John’s death and that Louise lacked unilateral authority to amend.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust became irrevocable upon the first grantor’s death, making the surviving spouse’s unilateral amendment invalid as a matter of law.
2. Whether the phrase “by the Grantors,” read with the trust’s singular/plural construction clause, rendered the amendment power ambiguous and therefore unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the partial final summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trust language was at least reasonably susceptible to an interpretation permitting the surviving grantor to amend after the other grantor’s death.
- Because the amendment provision was ambiguous when construed with the instrument’s internal rules of construction, summary judgment invalidating the amendment was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Trust interpretation must follow the instrument as a whole, including any express internal rules of construction.
- When a trust instrument is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation on a material point, summary judgment is improper.
- A joint revocable trust does not necessarily become irrevocable upon the first spouse’s death when the trust language, including interpretive clauses, supports a reasonable contrary reading.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the ruling that the surviving spouse lacked amendment authority as a matter of law, concluding the trust’s amendment language was ambiguous and required further proceedings rather than summary judgment to determine the amendment’s validity and the proper distribution of trust assets.


Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)