Trust Beneficiary Dies and No Remainder Is Named: Who Gets the Money? (Wessling v. Boston Private)

The Facts

Jacqueline Beatty’s will left her residuary estate half to her daughter Barbara Beatty outright and half to a trustee, in a discretionary trust for her daughter Helen Wessling. The trust was for Helen’s health, support, maintenance and comfort, and it said it was not meant to replace other support available to her. Helen’s husband, Paul Wessling, could benefit secondarily while they were married. The will did not say who would receive whatever was left in the trust when Helen died.

Helen died with money still in the trust. The trustee, Boston Private Bank and Trust Company, filed a declaratory action to sort out the competing claims. The probate court ruled that the Trust Code’s anti-lapse statute did not apply, that the leftover funds returned to the mother’s estate by a resulting trust, and that they passed under the residuary clause to Barbara as the surviving residuary beneficiary. It also rejected Paul’s claim to be reimbursed from the trust for money he spent supporting Helen.

Since the appeal ended without a full written opinion, the points below are what the parties argued, not findings by the court.

• John Beatty argued that section 736.1106 of the Trust Code applied and produced a taker, and that even if the funds went back to the estate, they had already passed once through the residuary clause and could not be run through it a second time. In his view they had to pass by intestacy under section 732.101.
• Paul and Alexis Wessling argued the will was ambiguous, that evidence of the mother’s intent should be considered, and that Paul’s right to benefits and reimbursement vested when the mother died.
• Barbara Beatty argued that section 736.1106 applies only to a future interest the trust actually creates, that this trust created none, and that under Florida resulting-trust cases the leftover funds returned to the estate. From there, section 732.604(2) sent the failed half of the residue to her as the other residuary beneficiary.
• The trustee argued that Paul waived his reimbursement claim by not raising it during the years the trust existed.

The Decision

The Third District affirmed on August 7, 2024, in a per curiam opinion without discussion. It cited three cases: Jaris v. Tucker and McKendree v. McKendree, for the rule that a marriage ends at the death of either spouse, and Steinhardt v. Steinhardt, 445 So. 2d 352, 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), for the rule that a resulting trust arises when an express trust is fully performed without using up the trust estate.

A citation affirmance like this tells you the authority the panel relied on, but not its full reasoning. The cited cases are consistent with the probate court’s ruling that Paul’s interest ended with Helen’s death and that the leftover trust funds went back to the mother’s estate. The opinion does not discuss section 736.1106 or the argument that the funds could not pass through the residuary clause a second time. The appellate docket for this case is not publicly viewable on ACIS, so we could not confirm whether further review was sought.

The Law

Section 736.1106 is the Trust Code’s anti-lapse statute. It applies to a “future interest under the terms of a trust” and makes that interest contingent on the beneficiary surviving the distribution date. If the beneficiary does not survive, it names substitute takers, starting with the beneficiary’s descendants. The fight here was whether a trust that gives someone only a lifetime benefit, and names no one to take afterward, creates a future interest the statute can act on.

When an express trust is fully performed and money is left over, Florida courts apply a resulting trust: the leftover property returns to the person or estate that created the trust. That is the rule of Steinhardt, which the Third District cited.

Once the money is back in the estate, the Probate Code takes over. Section 732.604(2) says that when a residuary devise is to two or more persons and one share fails, that share generally passes to the other residuary devisees. Section 732.101 says property a will does not effectively dispose of passes by intestacy, which is the result John Beatty sought.

Lessons

• Every trust should say who takes the remaining property when the last beneficiary dies. One missing sentence produced years of litigation and an appeal with three sets of appellants.
• A discretionary support trust for a struggling family member gives the trustee control during that person’s life. Without a remainder clause, it does not say where the money goes next.
• The Trust Code’s anti-lapse statute may not rescue a trust that never created a future interest in the first place.
• If you think you are owed reimbursement from a trust, raise the claim while the trust is being administered. Waiting carries risk, as the trustee argued here.
• A citation PCA decides only this case. It shows which authorities the court relied on, not a full rule for every trust without a remainder clause.

Source: Wessling v. Boston Private Bank & Trust Co., No. 3D23-0933 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 7, 2024) (per curiam affirmance citing authority), appeal from Miami-Dade Circuit Court No. 22-2928.

Watch the Oral Argument

This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.

📜 Lifetime Trust Beneficiary Dies, No Remainder Named — Who Gets What's Left? Florida Appeal

Go Deeper

• Does a Revocable Trust's Trustee Owe Anything to Contingent Heirs? (Capo v. Capo)
• Can an Irrevocable Trust Be Ended If the Settlor and Beneficiaries Agree? (Peck v. Peck)
• Stepchildren, Second Marriages, and Minor Children: Who Inherits in a Florida Blended Family?

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens to trust money when the beneficiary dies and no remainder beneficiary is named?

If the trust does not say who takes next, Florida courts may find a resulting trust, sending the leftover property back to whoever created the trust, here the mother’s estate. In Wessling, the Third District affirmed a ruling that the funds returned to the estate and passed under the will’s residuary clause.

Does Florida's trust anti-lapse statute apply to every trust?

Section 736.1106 applies to a future interest created under the terms of a trust. The winning side in Wessling argued that a trust giving only a lifetime benefit, with no named remainder, creates no such interest for the statute to save. The Third District affirmed without discussing the statute, so the case is not a ruling on it.

Does a surviving spouse of a trust beneficiary keep any benefits after the beneficiary dies?

It depends on the trust terms. In Wessling, the husband could benefit while he and the beneficiary were married, and the Third District cited cases holding that a marriage ends at death. The trial court’s rejection of his claims was affirmed.

What does a residuary clause do when one residuary share fails?

Under section 732.604(2), if a residuary devise is to two or more people and one share fails, that share generally passes to the other residuary devisees. If nothing in the will disposes of property, section 732.101 sends it to the heirs by intestacy.

Talk to a Florida trust litigation lawyer

Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida trust disputes and probate appeals from St. Petersburg. If you need a trust litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.

Read the law yourself, free: the full Florida Probate Code and Probate Rules and the Florida Trust Code are on floridarules.net.

This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.