Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 27, 2014 by admin

Third DCA enforces contractual forum selection clause over inconvenience and financial prejudice objections

39 Fla. L. Weekly D596b


Contracts — Venue — Trial court properly dismissed
counterclaims relating to an investment agreement on basis of mandatory forum
selection clause contained in agency investment agreement — Inconvenience and
additional costs are insufficient reasons to refuse to enforce a mandatory forum
selection clause

THE ESTATE OF IDELLE STERN, etc., et al., Appellants, vs. OPPENHEIMER TRUST
COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D13-688. L.T. Case No. 12-2448.
Opinion filed March 19, 2014. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Bernard S. Shapiro, Judge. Counsel: Stok Folk +
Kon, and Robert A. Stok and Daniel Brennan, for appellants. Wintter &
Associates, P.A., and Christopher Q. Wintter and Max G. Soren (Hollywood), for
appellee.
(Before ROTHENBERG, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.)
(ROTHENBERG, Judge.) The appellants challenge the trial court’s order
dismissing the portions of their counterclaim against Oppenheimer Trust Company
(“Oppenheimer”) relating to the Stern Charitable Remainder Unitrust (“CRUT”) due
to a forum selection clause in an agency investment agreement governing that
trust. We agree that the agency agreement is the sole document governing the
relationship and duties between the parties as to the CRUT, and therefore affirm
the trial court’s dismissal.
The appeal before us stems from a highly contentious and complicated
guardianship proceeding regarding the now-deceased Idelle Stern (“Mrs.
Stern”).1 The facts of the underlying
proceeding are myriad, but the relevant considerations for our decision are as
follows. As part of his estate plan, Rabbi Tibor H. Stern (“Rabbi Stern”), also
deceased, established two separate trusts to provide for his family and other
charitable interests. One trust, the CRUT, named Mrs. Stern as the sole lifetime
income beneficiary, with a remainder interest in several charities. The other
trust, the Reformed Stern Living Trust (“Stern Living Trust”), comprised three
separate sub-trusts, and provided income interests for Mrs. Stern and remainder
interests for the Sterns’ four daughters, Rochelle Kevelson, Tikvah Lyons, Joyce
Genauer, and Judy Sugar.
The CRUT and the Stern Living Trust have different trustees, beneficiaries,
and trust documents, and are also funded and managed entirely separately.
Importantly, although Oppenheimer is involved in the management of both trusts,
it is the co-trustee of the Stern Living Trust, while it is merely an investment
agent of the CRUT pursuant to a separate written contract entitled
“Discretionary Agency/Investment Management Account Agreement” (“the Agency
Agreement”). The Agency Agreement contains a forum selection clause that clearly
specifies: “Any proceeding of any nature out of this Agreement shall be
instituted only in the courts by the State of New Jersey.”
During the pendency of the underlying guardianship action, Oppenheimer filed
an action seeking court approval of its accounting of the Stern Living Trust,
and the appellants counterclaimed for thirteen separate causes of action
alleging various types of fraud, mismanagement, violations of Florida’s Blue Sky
Laws, and breaches of fiduciary duty. Oppenheimer moved to dismiss the causes of
action based on the mandatory forum selection clause in the Agency Agreement and
the trial court, after hearing two days of argument, granted that motion with
respect to all claims relating to the CRUT, but left the claims concerning the
Stern Living Trust pending in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. This appeal followed.
Although the appellants raise several points of error on appeal, all of these
arguments appear to confuse Oppenheimer’s duties and obligations as co-trustee
of the Stern Living Trust with Oppenheimer’s duties and obligations as the
investment agent of the CRUT pursuant to the Agency Agreement. Most of the
appellants’ arguments rely on the faulty premise that the heightened duties
imposed on trustees by the Florida Trust Code necessarily apply to Oppenheimer
as the investment agent of the CRUT as well. For that reason, appellants’
arguments are unavailing, and we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
The Agency Agreement is the only connection between the parties, and any
duties owed to the appellants necessarily stem from that contract. Although the
appellants have tried to frame this case as a trust dispute, the CRUT portion of
this litigation against Oppenheimer is nothing more than a commercial dispute
over an investment agreement, which is governed by the Agency Agreement. As
such, we are guided by the principles of general contract law in interpreting
the forum selection clause in the Agency Agreement.
Florida law is well-settled that mandatory forum selection clauses “should be
enforced in the absence of a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or
unjust.” Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 1986). A party
seeking to avoid enforcement of a mandatory forum selection clause bears a heavy
burden of establishing that the enforcement is unjust or unreasonable and must
demonstrate that the contractually designated forum essentially amounts to “no
forum at all,” thereby depriving the party of its day in court. Am. Safety
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mijares Holding Co., LLC
, 76 So. 3d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA
2011) (quoting Corsec, S.L. v. VMC Int’l Franchising, LLC, 909 So. 2d
945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)).
The appellants in this matter do not contest that the forum selection clause
at issue is mandatory. Furthermore, the appellants’ only reasons why the CRUT
litigation should not take place in New Jersey are inconvenience and additional
costs to themselves, neither of which is sufficient to refuse to enforce a forum
selection clause. See Manrique, 493 So. 2d at 440 n.4 (“We
emphasize that the test of unreasonableness is not mere inconvenience or
additional expense.”). We accordingly affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the
CRUT claims without prejudice to the appellants to file their action in the New
Jersey courts as the Agency Agreement dictates.
Affirmed.
__________________
1Mrs. Stern was alive for the majority of
the litigation, but passed away on July 11, 2013, after this appeal was filed.
Her estate was substituted as the party in interest.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982