Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 736.0110 (2025)
Others treated as qualified beneficiaries.
✓ 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
736.0110 Others treated as qualified beneficiaries.—
(1) A charitable organization expressly designated to receive distributions under the terms of a charitable trust has the rights of a qualified beneficiary under this code if the charitable organization, on the date the charitable organization’s qualification is being determined:
(a) Is a distributee or permissible distributee of trust income or principal;
(b) Would be a distributee or permissible distributee of trust income or principal on termination of the interests of other distributees or permissible distributees then receiving or eligible to receive distributions; or
(c) Would be a distributee or permissible distributee of trust income or principal if the trust terminated on that date.
(2) A person appointed to enforce a trust created for the care of an animal or another noncharitable purpose as provided in s. 736.0408 or s. 736.0409 has the rights of a qualified beneficiary under this code.
(3)(a) The Attorney General may assert the rights of a qualified beneficiary with respect to a charitable trust having its principal place of administration in this state. The Attorney General has standing to assert such rights in any judicial proceedings.
(b) Where the Attorney General asserts the rights of a qualified beneficiary as provided in paragraph (a), the Attorney General has the exclusive authority to represent the general public, unnamed charitable beneficiaries, and any person other than a named charitable beneficiary having a special interest in a charitable trust, in any judicial proceedings within this state or elsewhere, with respect to all matters relating to the administration of the charitable trust, including, and without limitation, contract and trust law claims relating to charitable distributions and the exercise of trustee powers. The Attorney General of another state or any other public officer of another state does not have standing to assert such rights or interests.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: Joseph R. Biden, I I I, the Attorney Gen. etc. v. John S. Lord, Herbert H. Peyton, 147 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Joseph R. Biden, I I I, the Attorney Gen. etc. v. John S. Lord, Herbert H. Peyton, 147 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “§ 736.0110(3) Fla. Stat. (2006) (“The Attorney General may assert the rights of a qualified beneficiary with respect to a charitable trust having its principal place of administration in this state.”
Kathleen Jennings, the Attorney Gen. of the State of Delaware v. Hugh M. Durden, John S. Lord, Thomas G. Kuntz, Terri Kelly, Geoffrey M. Rogers, & Winfred L. Thornton, etc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “See § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). First, the Trustees argued that neither Delaware as a state nor the DAG were beneficiaries, much less qualified beneficiaries of the Trust under the controlling statute; thus, the DAG lacked standing to sue.”
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Org. of Am., Inc. v. Stephen G. Melcer, Tr. (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “-2- § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
— 736.0110(1) — 4 cases
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Org. of Am., Inc. v. Stephen G. Melcer, Tr. (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “-2- § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Kathleen Jennings, the Attorney Gen. of the State of Delaware v. Hugh M. Durden, John S. Lord, Thomas G. Kuntz, Terri Kelly, Geoffrey M. Rogers, & Winfred L. Thornton, etc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “See § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). First, the Trustees argued that neither Delaware as a state nor the DAG were beneficiaries, much less qualified beneficiaries of the Trust under the controlling statute; thus, the DAG lacked standing to sue.”
— 736.0110(1)(b) — 3 cases
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Org. of Am., Inc. v. Stephen G. Melcer, Tr. (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “-2- § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
Hadassah v. Melcer, 268 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). “§ 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) (emphasis added).”
— 736.0110(3) — 2 cases
Joseph R. Biden, I I I, the Attorney Gen. etc. v. John S. Lord, Herbert H. Peyton, 147 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “§ 736.0110(3) Fla. Stat. (2006) (“The Attorney General may assert the rights of a qualified beneficiary with respect to a charitable trust having its principal place of administration in this state.”
Kathleen Jennings, the Attorney Gen. of the State of Delaware v. Hugh M. Durden, John S. Lord, Thomas G. Kuntz, Terri Kelly, Geoffrey M. Rogers, & Winfred L. Thornton, etc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). “See § 736.0110(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). First, the Trustees argued that neither Delaware as a state nor the DAG were beneficiaries, much less qualified beneficiaries of the Trust under the controlling statute; thus, the DAG lacked standing to sue.”
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.