Phillips v. Estate of Holzmann

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1998 · Property

740 So. 2d 1 (1998)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyWillsTrustshonorary trustresulting trusttestator intentnon-charitable purpose trustpet trust

Facts

The testator's will left $25,000 to her "beloved friend," Jo Ellen Phillips, "for the care and shelter of [her] two dogs, Riley and Shaun." Shortly after the testator's death, both dogs were put to sleep for health reasons. The testator's parents then petitioned to have the $25,000 returned to the estate. The trial court ruled that Phillips held the money as an honorary trust that failed when the dogs died.

Issue

When a will leaves money to a person for the care of the testator's dogs, and the dogs are put to sleep shortly after the testator's death, does the recipient keep the money outright or must she return it to the estate because the specific non-charitable purpose has failed?

Rule

The controlling inquiry in construing a will is the testator's intent. Where a testator unambiguously gives property to a transferee for the benefit of animals or another specific non-charitable purpose, the transfer creates an honorary trust rather than an outright gift. Under the adopted Restatement view, the transferee has power to apply the property to the designated purpose but cannot be compelled to do so; if the property is not or cannot be applied to that purpose, the transferee holds it on a resulting trust for the settlor or the settlor's estate.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Miami, Lena Ortiz's will states: "I leave $18,000 to my neighbor, Aaron Pike, for the feeding and veterinary care of my parrot, Azul." After Lena dies, Aaron claims the money is his outright because he was named personally in the will.

How should a court most likely characterize Aaron's interest in the $18,000?

Explanation. The controlling inquiry is the testator's intent as shown by the will's language. A gift to a named person "for the feeding and veterinary care" of an animal unambiguously indicates that the property is to be used for a specific non-charitable purpose benefiting the animal, not as an outright personal gift to the transferee. Under the majority rule adopted in the case, that arrangement is an honorary trust, not an absolute devise.