Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 689.075 (2025)
Inter vivos trusts; powers retained by settlor.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
689.075 Inter vivos trusts; powers retained by settlor.—
(1) A trust which is otherwise valid and which complies with s. 736.0403, including, but not limited to, a trust the principal of which is composed of real property, intangible personal property, tangible personal property, the possible expectancy of receiving as a named beneficiary death benefits as described in s. 733.808, or any combination thereof, and which has been created by a written instrument shall not be held invalid or an attempted testamentary disposition for any one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Because the settlor or another person or both possess the power to revoke, amend, alter, or modify the trust in whole or in part;
(b) Because the settlor or another person or both possess the power to appoint by deed or will the persons and organizations to whom the income shall be paid or the principal distributed;
(c) Because the settlor or another person or both possess the power to add to, or withdraw from, the trust all or any part of the principal or income at one time or at different times;
(d) Because the settlor or another person or both possess the power to remove the trustee or trustees and appoint a successor trustee or trustees;
(e) Because the settlor or another person or both possess the power to control the trustee or trustees in the administration of the trust;
(f) Because the settlor has retained the right to receive all or part of the income of the trust during her or his life or for any part thereof; or
(g) Because the settlor is, at the time of the execution of the instrument, or thereafter becomes, sole trustee.
(2) Nothing contained herein shall affect the validity of those accounts, including but not limited to bank accounts, share accounts, deposits, certificates of deposit, savings certificates, and other similar arrangements, heretofore or hereafter established at any bank, savings and loan association, or credit union by one or more persons, in trust for one or more other persons, which arrangements are, by their terms, revocable by the person making the same until her or his death or incompetency.
(3) The fact that any one or more of the powers specified in subsection (1) are in fact exercised once, or more than once, shall not affect the validity of the trust or its nontestamentary character.
(4) This section shall be applicable to trusts executed before or after July 1, 1969, by persons who are living on or after said date.
(5) The amendment of this section, by chapter 75-74, Laws of Florida, is intended to clarify the legislative intent of this section at the time of its original enactment that it apply to all otherwise valid trusts which are created by written instrument and which are not expressly excluded by the terms of this section and that no such trust shall be declared invalid for any of the reasons stated in subsections (1) and (3) regardless of whether the trust involves or relates to an interest in real property.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 69-192; s. 1, ch. 69-1747; ss. 1, 2, ch. 71-126; s. 169, ch. 73-333; s. 1, ch. 74-78; ss. 1, 2, ch. 75-74; s. 5, ch. 95-401; s. 756, ch. 97-102; s. 22, ch. 2006-217.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1971–2010 · leading case: Zuckerman v. Alter, 615 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1993).
Zuckerman v. Alter, 615 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1993). “The district court thoroughly explored the histories of both section 689.075, Florida Statutes (1989), and sections 56 and 57 of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts (1957) to reach the same conclusion that we reach today.”
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
In Re Est. of Johnson, 397 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Appellant relies on Section 689.075, Florida Statutes (1977) to validate the conveyance.”
In Re Est. of Robinson, 720 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “See § 689.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Zuckerman, 615 So.”
In Re Est. of Katz, 528 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “Appellants respond that revocable inter vivos trusts as means of disposing of property upon one's death were considered invalid because illusory, until what is now section 689.075, Florida Statutes, was enacted in 1969.”
Rollins v. Alvarez, 792 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “See also § 689.075(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; G. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 993 (rev.”
Litsey v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 243 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). “specifically excludes trust accounts, such as the ones involved here, from having to be in conformity with the formalities for the execution of wills.”
Hansen v. Bothe, 10 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “To the contrary, section 689.075(1), Florida Statutes (2005), validates trusts with testamentary provisions.”
Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 624 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “Next, the Rogan children assert that Dexia cannot utilize its equitable theories to seek turnover of the Rogan domestic trusts’ assets because a trust is not rendered invalid simply because the settlor, Peter Rogan, allegedly retains control over the trust.”
In Re Est. of Donovan, 550 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). “Under the terms of Mr. Donovan's will, his homestead vested in Mrs.”
Kent v. Katz, 528 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “Appellants respond that revocable inter vivos trusts as means of disposing of property upon one’s death were considered invalid because illusory, until what is now section 689.075, Florida Statutes, was enacted in 1969.”
Mims v. ComBanks Corp. (In re Mims), 33 B.R. 95 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1983). “In the leading Florida case decided on the subject of Totten Trusts subsequent to the adoption of F.S. 689.075 in 1969, Litsey v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Tampa, 243 So.”
— 689.075(1) — 5 cases
In Re Est. of Robinson, 720 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “See § 689.075(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Zuckerman, 615 So.”
Hansen v. Bothe, 10 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “To the contrary, section 689.075(1), Florida Statutes (2005), validates trusts with testamentary provisions.”
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
Mims v. ComBanks Corp. (In re Mims), 33 B.R. 95 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1983). “In the leading Florida case decided on the subject of Totten Trusts subsequent to the adoption of F.S. 689.075 in 1969, Litsey v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Tampa, 243 So.”
Salkin v. Stone Street Capital, Inc. (In Re Jack), 297 B.R. 279 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2010).
— 689.075(1)(a) — 1 case
Rollins v. Alvarez, 792 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “See also § 689.075(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; G. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 993 (rev.”
— 689.075(1)(g) — 2 cases
Zuckerman v. Alter, 615 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1993). “The district court thoroughly explored the histories of both section 689.075, Florida Statutes (1989), and sections 56 and 57 of the Restatement (Second) of Trusts (1957) to reach the same conclusion that we reach today.”
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
— 689.075(2) — 2 cases
Litsey v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Tampa, 243 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). “specifically excludes trust accounts, such as the ones involved here, from having to be in conformity with the formalities for the execution of wills.”
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
— 689.075(4) — 1 case
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
— 689.075(5) — 2 cases
Alter v. Zuckerman, 585 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “Instead, the 1975 legislature reenacted paragraph (1)(g) intact. Zuckerman's position must therefore be rejected.”
In re Est. of Floeckher, 23 Fla. Supp. 2d 14 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1987).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.