Work through The Family Trust Dispute, a Florida trusts fact pattern with scored issues, free to read. Florida now tests Trusts primarily by multiple choice, so treat this as deep issue practice, not a likely essay. Premium adds the model answer: $99 one time, with access through your exam date plus 14 days.
Exam format: Starting in July 2023, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners primarily tests Trusts by multiple choice on Part A. Trusts is still a Part A subject, so a trust issue can still come up in an essay. Source: Florida Bar Examination Study Guide, August 2026.
In 2020, Grandmother created a trust with First Bank as trustee. The trust instrument stated: "Income to my son David for life, remainder to David's children." The trust was silent on revocability, specified no method for amendment, and expressly provided that F.S. 736.0412, 736.04113 and 736.04115 apply to it. The trust included a valid spendthrift provision restraining both voluntary and involuntary transfer. In 2022, Grandmother told David, "I plan to amend the trust later to leave the remainder to charity." She never executed any amendment and took no other step toward one. David has significant gambling debts. His creditors seek to reach his trust interest. David also owes $50,000 in past-due child support to his ex-wife for their daughter Emma under a Florida court support order. In 2025, after Grandmother had died, First Bank invested 80% of trust assets in a single tech stock recommended by its president, who personally held a large position in that same stock and disclosed it to no one. He arranged the trust purchase so that it would coincide with his own planned exit, and sold most of his holding through the public market over the same period. The trust bought no shares from him directly, and no trade of his was matched to the trust. The stock then lost 60% of its value. David now wants the ENTIRE corpus distributed to him outright, with his two living children (ages 25 and 30) relinquishing their remainder interests and nothing reserved for any later-born child. Both children agree to that. David is 55. No beneficiaries outside David and the class of his children are named. First Bank has not agreed. Grandmother died in 2024.
Trust silent on revocability. FL presumes REVOCABLE. Grandmother could have amended.
Subject: Trusts | Points: 15
Careful: Florida does NOT categorically require a writing. Under F.S. 736.0602 a settlor may amend by substantially complying with any method the trust provides, or - if it provides none - by any other method manifesting clear and convincing evidence of intent. The reason this fails is that Grandmother expressed a WISH to change beneficiaries later; she never manifested a present intent to amend and never executed anything.
Subject: Trusts | Points: 10
Spendthrift clause protects David's interest from gambling creditors.
Subject: Trusts | Points: 15
FL exception: Child support and alimony CAN pierce spendthrift protection.
Subject: Trusts | Points: 15
Concentration of 80% in one stock strongly suggests imprudence absent special circumstances - but the duty to diversify is NOT absolute; it yields where special circumstances make non-diversification prudent, and the trustee would need evidence of circumstances making the concentration prudent. The undisclosed personal stake of the bank president is the stronger point: it puts the DUTY OF LOYALTY in issue, not merely the duty of care.
Subject: Trusts | Points: 15
The trap: Florida did NOT adopt the UTC 411 post-settlor-death beneficiaries-ONLY termination rule, so consent alone gets David nowhere. While Grandmother lived the trust was REVOCABLE and she could simply have amended or revoked it (F.S. 736.0602); F.S. 736.0411 was unavailable then (it addresses an IRREVOCABLE trust) and is impossible now (it needs settlor consent). TERMINATION is within ALL THREE post-death routes - 736.04113(2) expressly allows terminating in whole or in part, and both 736.0412 and 736.04115 reach those same kinds of action - so the request does not fail for being a termination. It fails on consent and predicates: 736.0412 needs the TRUSTEE plus all QUALIFIED beneficiaries and First Bank has not agreed (material purpose is not a requirement of that section, though Part III representation governs whether later-born interests are bound); 736.04113 and 736.04115 are possible petitions only, since these facts establish neither the 736.04113 predicates nor the 736.04115 prerequisite. Note too the remainder class is OPEN while David lives, so any complete termination must validly protect and bind later-born interests through Part III representation
Subject: Trusts | Points: 10