## Facts

- Frank Timmons, Sr. died in 1999, survived by his wife, Myrtle, and two adopted children from a prior marriage (Frank G. Timmons, Jr. and Jacquelyn Timmons Forman); Myrtle had four biological children who were never adopted by Frank Sr.
- Frank Sr.’s will created two testamentary trusts: a Family Trust (about $650,000) and a Marital Trust (holding the larger share of the estate).
- Myrtle was the sole income beneficiary during her lifetime and could annually withdraw the greater of $5,000 or 5% of principal from each trust; the trustees could also invade principal for her maintenance and support.
- At Myrtle’s death, the Marital Trust principal (after estate taxes) would pour over into the Family Trust and be distributed under the Family Trust’s terms.
- The Family Trust directed division into equal shares for each of Frank Sr.’s “children,” and the will defined “children” to include Frank Sr.’s natural and adopted children and Myrtle’s children.
- The Family Trust also granted Myrtle a limited power of appointment exercisable only in favor of Frank Sr.’s “lineal descendants.”
- Myrtle executed an instrument purporting to appoint all Family Trust principal and income to her four biological children, effectively excluding Frank Sr.’s adopted children.
- The adopted children sued Myrtle and the co-trustees, alleging the appointment was invalid and a breach of fiduciary duty; the trial court granted summary judgment for the co-trustees, and the adopted children appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the technical term “lineal descendants,” as used in the limited power of appointment, included Myrtle’s unadopted stepchildren.
2. Whether the trial court erred by not applying the legal definition of “lineal descendants” when construing the instrument and determining settlor intent.
3. Whether Myrtle’s attempted appointment exclusively to her children was authorized under the trust and therefore valid.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the final summary judgment for the co-trustees.
- The court directed entry of partial summary judgment for the adopted children.
- The court held that “lineal descendants” is a technical term that must be given its legal meaning unless clearly used otherwise.
- Under that meaning, Myrtle’s children were not Frank Sr.’s lineal descendants because they were not in his descending line and were never adopted by him.
- Myrtle’s attempted exercise of the limited power of appointment solely in favor of her children was invalid.

## Legal Principles

- Technical legal terms in a will or trust are presumed to carry their established legal meaning unless the instrument clearly shows a different intended meaning.
- “Lineal descendants” refers to persons in the donor’s descending line; unadopted stepchildren are not included absent express inclusion or adoption.
- A drafter’s express expansion of one defined class term (e.g., “children”) does not, without more, expand a separate technical term (e.g., “lineal descendants”) used elsewhere in the same instrument.
- A limited power of appointment must be exercised strictly within the class of permissible appointees; an appointment outside that class is ineffective.

## Conclusion

The court construed “lineal descendants” according to its technical legal meaning and held that unadopted stepchildren were not permissible appointees under the limited power of appointment, rendering Myrtle’s diversion of the Family Trust to her children invalid and requiring judgment in favor of Frank Sr.’s adopted children.


Timmons v. Ingrahm, 36 So. 3d 861 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2010)