Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 736.0504 (2025)
Discretionary trusts; effect of standard.
✓ 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
736.0504 Discretionary trusts; effect of standard.—
(1) As used in this section, the term “discretionary distribution” means a distribution that is subject to the trustee’s discretion whether or not the discretion is expressed in the form of a standard of distribution and whether or not the trustee has abused the discretion.
(2) Whether or not a trust contains a spendthrift provision, if a trustee may make discretionary distributions to or for the benefit of a beneficiary, a creditor of the beneficiary, including a creditor as described in s. 736.0503(2), may not:
(a) Compel a distribution that is subject to the trustee’s discretion; or
(b) Attach or otherwise reach the interest, if any, which the beneficiary might have as a result of the trustee’s authority to make discretionary distributions to or for the benefit of the beneficiary.
(3) If the trustee’s discretion to make distributions for the trustee’s own benefit is limited by an ascertainable standard, a creditor may not reach or compel distribution of the beneficial interest except to the extent the interest would be subject to the creditor’s claim were the beneficiary not acting as trustee.
(4) This section does not limit the right of a beneficiary to maintain a judicial proceeding against a trustee for an abuse of discretion or failure to comply with a standard for distribution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Miller v. Kresser, 34 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Miller v. Kresser, 34 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 736.0504(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no law in Florida suggesting that a beneficiary’s creditors may reach trust assets in a discretionary trust simply because the trustee allows the beneficiary to exercise significant control over the trust.”
Berlinger v. Casselberry, 133 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “He asserted that the trusts were discretionary and opined that the applicable trust statute, section 736.0504, prohibited any creditor, including Cassel-berry, from attaching any distributions paid on behalf or for the benefit of Ber-linger.”
Inglis v. Casselberry, 137 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “He testified that the trusts were discretionary and opined that the applicable trust statute, section 736.0504, Florida Statutes (2011), prohibits any creditor, including Cassel-berry, from attaching any distributions paid on behalf or for the benefit of the beneficiary,…”
Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 624 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “Fla. Stat. § 736.0504 (2). To the extent the Rogan children rely on section 736.”
Gregory Todd Givans (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2021). “32 A creditor holding a claim against one spouse can reach that spouse’s share of joint tenant or tenants in common property to satisfy the claim, regardless of the interest of the non-debtor spouse.33 If the Debtor and Mrs. Givans do not own the Property as tenants by entirety,…”
— 736.0504(1) — 1 case
Miller v. Kresser, 34 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 736.0504(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no law in Florida suggesting that a beneficiary’s creditors may reach trust assets in a discretionary trust simply because the trustee allows the beneficiary to exercise significant control over the trust.”
— 736.0504(2) — 2 cases
Miller v. Kresser, 34 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “§ 736.0504(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). There is no law in Florida suggesting that a beneficiary’s creditors may reach trust assets in a discretionary trust simply because the trustee allows the beneficiary to exercise significant control over the trust.”
Berlinger v. Casselberry, 133 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). “He asserted that the trusts were discretionary and opined that the applicable trust statute, section 736.0504, prohibited any creditor, including Cassel-berry, from attaching any distributions paid on behalf or for the benefit of Ber-linger.”
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.