A Florida court has ordered attorney Marc J. Soss to return funds he withdrew from the Leon Bloom Revocable Living Trust. The ruling comes after Soss was removed as the Successor Trustee due to a conflict of interest. The decision affects the trust's beneficiaries and clarifies the legal responsibilities of trustees in similar situations.
The court's ruling, issued on June 3, 2020, highlights the importance of fiduciary duty in trust management. It underscores that trustees must act in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries, especially when conflicts of interest arise.
Background
The case involves Marc J. Soss, who served as the attorney for Dorothy Bloom, the widow of Leon Bloom, and was appointed as the Successor Trustee of the Leon Bloom Revocable Living Trust. The trust was established by Leon Bloom in 1988, with his wife Dorothy as a secondary beneficiary. After Leon became incapacitated in 2012, Robert Johnson was appointed as the Trustee.
In 2014, a guardianship proceeding was initiated to appoint Marshall Bloom, Leon's nephew, as an emergency temporary guardian. During this process, Dorothy sought reimbursement from the trust for expenses incurred while caring for Leon. A global settlement was reached, leading to the resignation of Johnson and the appointment of Caldwell Trust Company as the new Successor Trustee.
After Leon's passing in 2015, Soss was named as a putative Successor Trustee, despite objections regarding his potential conflict of interest. Following a series of legal motions and hearings, Soss was ultimately removed from his position due to these conflicts, leading to the current appeal.
The Ruling
The District Court of Appeal of Florida ruled on the appeal filed by Soss and the cross-appeal by Marshall Bloom. The court found no reversible error regarding Soss's claims but agreed with Bloom that Soss should return all funds he withdrew from the trust. The court stated, "It would be an abuse of my discretion to ignore the fact that those payments were received by Mr. Soss at a time when he knew or should have known that he should not have made the payments because he was not an appropriate trustee."
Judge Atkinson, along with Judges Sleet and Salario, concurred with the decision. The court emphasized that Soss's actions as a trustee were inappropriate and that he failed to demonstrate that his withdrawals were for the benefit of the trust.
Impact
This ruling sets an important precedent regarding the responsibilities of trustees in Florida. It reinforces the principle that trustees must act solely in the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries, particularly when there is a conflict of interest. The court's decision to require Soss to return all funds he withdrew from the trust serves as a warning to other trustees about the consequences of failing to adhere to their fiduciary duties.
Beneficiaries of trusts can take comfort in this ruling, knowing that courts will hold trustees accountable for their actions. The decision may also encourage greater scrutiny of trustee actions in future cases, ensuring that funds are managed appropriately and in accordance with the law.
What's Next
It is unclear if Soss plans to appeal the court's decision. There are no related cases pending at this time. The ruling stands as a significant development in trust law within Florida, emphasizing the importance of ethical management of trust funds.